Obama uses Biden to cover his tracks

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=1756

Redacted from article by  JPost.com Staff

The Jerusalem Post –  October 2, 2011

‘NY Times’ reports US vice president told rabbis in Florida “over my dead body are we going to let him out before his time”; Obama is yet to decide. US Vice President Joe Biden opposed offering clemency to jailed Israeli agent Jonathan Pollard, the New York Times quoted Biden as saying in an article published on Saturday. US President Barack Obama has yet to respond to a request from President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to grant clemency to Pollard.

“President Obama was considering clemency, but I told him, ‘Over my dead body are we going to let him out before his time,’” Biden said. “If it were up to me, he would stay in jail for life.”

In a press release circulated by the Justice For Jonathan organization, it is stated that the vice president gave “absolutely no clue as to the reason for his flip-flop,” which contradicts a video interview he gave in 2007 in which he expressed support for Pollard’s release via commutation of his sentence to time served:

Biden also did not offer any explanation, the statement said, to contradict the professional opinions expressed by the former head of the CIA, the former- attorney- general, several former secretaries of state, the former head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the former White House legal counsel and “a host of others intimately familiar with the case, who all think freedom for Pollard is long overdue.”

The group stated that Biden’s change of heart on Pollard supported the New York Times contention that Biden’s recent declaration that Pollard should never be released was a “stunt to take the hit for his boss, Obama.” The president has been repeatedly criticized for his silence in response to requests by high ranking American official requests for Pollard’s release, according to the group.

The New York Times reported that Obama is relying on Biden to help him retain the Jewish vote, seen by many to be slipping to the Republicans. Next month Pollard will complete his 26th year of a life sentence. Despite some warning signs, Democratic officials maintain that they do not think that Mr. Obama is in danger of losing the Jewish vote — particularly given the president’s muscular defense of Israel at the United Nations General Assembly last week.

But a Republican victory in the race for a Congressional seat in a heavily Orthodox Jewish district in New York three weeks ago clearly has some Democratic officials unsettled. So the White House has unleashed a barrage of officials — including Samantha Power, a senior aide at the National Security Council, and Susan Rice, the United States ambassador to the United Nations — to soothe relations with American Jewish leaders.

 

I Obama coerces weak Netanyahu II Magnificent Netanyahu Response at UN on Video

I Fellow MK (Member of Knesset) blasts Obama and Netanyahu

II PM Netanyahu responds in his usual magnificent manner before UN General Assembly, Sept.23, 2011 – Video below

JewishJournal.com
September 20, 2011

A Knesset member visiting Los Angeles has accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of buckling under intense pressure from President Barack Obama, who wants to prevent any Israeli retaliation against the Palestinian Authority in its bid to win recognition as a state from the United Nations.

Dr. Aryeh Eldad, a member of the self-described “right-wing” Hatikvah faction of the National Union party, charged that Obama was holding Netanyahu “at gunpoint” – the gun being the U.S. threat to go back on its promise to veto the Palestinian statehood bid in the UN Security Council.

Specifically, Obama has demanded that Netanyahu and Israel’s supporters in the United States pressure Congress to abort two pending resolutions to penalize the Palestinian Authority (PA) if it pursues its bid, Eldad claimed.

One would shut off U.S. aid funds to the Palestinians and a second would support Israel’s right to annex the West Bank. The legal justification for such actions, cited by many Israeli officials, would be that the unilateral statehood request would be a direct violation of the 1993 Oslo Accords.

Eldad said he was certain of the accuracy of his information, but declined to name his sources.

“Netanyahu is the first Israeli prime minister who hasn’t threatened sanctions if the PA seeks unilateral statehood,” Eldad said during a phone interview.

Asked what he would do if he were prime minister, Eldad replied, “I would immediately annex Judea and Samaria (West Bank). There will be some riots, as in the two intifadas, but this will happen in any case, because the expectations of the Palestinians can never be met. They think the sun will rise in the west the day after independence.”

Eldad’s National Union has four Knesset seats and is in the opposition, but he asserts that a total of 42 members, many belonging to the government coalition, share his viewpoint.

As to his stand on an eventual negotiated two-state solution, Eldad, a prominent physician before he turned to politics, said he was enthusiastically in favor – as long as the Palestinian state was Jordan. He predicted that when the Arab Spring uprisings reached Jordan, Palestinians, who make up the majority of the population, would take over and turn the country into their own state. If this happens, Eldad said, he would oppose a forcible transfer of Palestinians from the West Bank to Jordan.

Eldad is nearing the end of his 15-day stay in the United States, during which he lobbied Congress members in Washington, D.C., met with Jewish organizations in New York, and on Sunday addressed some 2,000 evangelical Christians at the Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa.

Based on his various meetings, he described the American Jewish community as largely confused, with even strong lobbies such as AIPAC sidelined “as long as Netanyahu is not strong enough to lead.”

Will there ever be peace? “Maybe in four generations,” Eldad responded, Israel and its neighbors will find equilibrium “like Europe after its religious wars.”

II PM Netanyahu’s magnificent response before UN General Assembly Sept. 23, 2011

I Obama deliberately beclouds Muslim Identity of 9/11 Terrorists. II PM Netanyahu Israeli Cabinet Communique

II PM Netanyahu Israeli Cabinet Communique September 11, 2011

I Helen Freedman, Executive Director
Americans For a Safe Israel
September 12, 2011

It was my privilege to participate in the outpouring of pain, memory, and truth at the profoundly moving Freedom Rally, organized by AFDI leader Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch. As we recalled the agony of that horrific day, Sept. 11, 2001, we stressed that it is important not to forgive or forget and to outspokenly name the enemy – radical Islam – which declared war on America and the world on that fateful day.

The following report is from Fern Sidman, NY correspondent for ARUTZ SHEVA.
12/09/11 12:05

Over 500 at Defiant Freedom Rally Near Ground Zero

On Sunday afternoon, September 11th, over 500 people gathered at Park Place and West Broadway in lower Manhattan to mark the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that left close to 3000 Americans dead.

Organized by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), a human rights organization headed by author and activist Pamela Geller, (who achieved notoriety for spearheading the campaign against the construction of a mosque at Ground Zero), the 9/11 Freedom Rally featured members of the clergy, New York City fire fighters and police, 9/11 first responders, and 9/11 family members who were barred and/or not invited to the official ceremonies that took place earlier in the day.

The decision to exclude religious leaders, rescue workers, police officers and other key first responders as program participants was defended by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg who said,:”We just don’t have room for them”, claiming space and security are the issues.

In a tone of defiance AFDI Executive Director Pamela Geller declared, “While White House guidelines forbid official 9/11 ceremonies from mentioning who attacked the U.S. on that day or why, our 9/11 Freedom Rally features more honest speakers. We are here today to honor our war dead and stand for freedom and against the deception and lies being used to subdue us. We must show the jihadists we are unbowed in the defense of freedom.”

Joined by Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, Ms. Geller introduced such speakers as George Demos, New York Congressional candidate, Anders Gravers of Stop Islamisation of Europe (SIOE); Sudanese ex-slave and freedom fighter Simon Deng; war hero and North Carolina Congressional candidate Ilario Pantano; popular radio host Joyce Kaufman; and Helen Freedman, Executive Director of Americans For a Safe Israel (AFSI), among many others.

Speaking on behalf of the 9/11 family members were Rosaleen Tallon, sister of hero firefighter and reservist in the United States Marine Corps, Sean Tallon, who was killed in the 9/11 attacks; Nelly Braginskaya, who lost her son Alex; Sally Regenhard, mother of hero firefighter Christian Regenhard, killed in the 9/11 attacks (Regenhard is an American activist who has become one of the leading voices for the families of the victims of September 11); Maureen and Al Santora, who lost their hero fightfighter son 9/11 and Alan DeVona, 911 first responder.

Reflecting on political realities that have been engendered over the last 10 years and taking aim at the current administration in Washington for its directives to whitewash the true motives of the 9/11 attackers, Helen Freedman of Americans For a Safe Israel said, “The Obama leadership today would still like us to be asleep. We are lulled with the myths of mindless multi-culturalism. Interfaith dialogues are encouraged to promote inter-denominational understanding. In today’s modern world, there has been no lack of understanding amongst Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and so forth.

What the Obama world is promoting is engagement and understanding of Islam as a peaceful religion, deserving of having its mosques built throughout the United States; its chaplains preaching in our prisons, everyone respecting the sanctity of the Koran, while all along the war is being waged under our noses.

II PM Netanyahu – Redacted from Israeli Cabinet communique on September 11, 2011

“Today, we mark exactly one decade since that monumental terrorist attack in which almost 3,000 innocent civilians of various nationalities were murdered in New York and Washington. That Al-Qaeda attack on the US marked the peak of a wave of terrorist attacks, which nevertheless continued in Madrid, London, Bali and Mumbai.

We are in this struggle, the struggle against terrorism, and while there is no doubt that this is terrorism, it is a tool of war. This is not a conventional war. This is a war of terrorism – by the forces and regimes of radical Islam. Radical Islam threatens moderate Islamic and Arab regimes. It threatens the very existence of the State of Israel and in its linking up with radical regimes, it brings the tools of terrorism – rockets and missiles – to Israeli civilians.

This network, which has several heads composed of two basic movements, denies the principles of progress and peace, and the principles of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. They seek to make a historic change, a historic regression, through the use of violence that knows no borders. Terrorism is their tool and therefore, we must know that we are in a decade of terrorism, of that same radical Islam that is implanted deep in the expanse between east and west, and – most of all – runs amok in the heart of our region. But, today it hangs over all of us, over the regimes and the stability of the
Middle East, over the security of Israel, over the security of Europe and the US and, in my opinion, over the security and stability of Russia and many other countries.

I would also like to say several words about Egypt. We had a difficult, very challenging weekend. I would like to thank my colleagues, Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, as well as the heads of the ISA and the Mossad, the IDF Chief-of-Staff and their people. I think that with very accelerated work we succeeded in preventing a very near disaster. The rioters broke into the embassy building, entered the embassy area itself, and were only one door away from our people, who were besieged in there.

Our people acted exceptionally. I commend Yonatan and his friends. They acted with equanimity and, at a certain stage, in very close coordination with the command center, the Foreign Ministry security personnel and with the commander on the ground in Egypt, after we established this connection. I must also note the actions of US President Barack Obama, who became involved at a critical time in order to use America’s influence on the issue.

… I am pleased that there are other forces in Egypt, beginning with the Egyptian government. There are also other voices that want to continue advancing the peace. We are in contact with the Egyptian government regarding the necessary procedures for returning our ambassador so that he and his staff will be properly secured, so that they might continue to maintain Israel’s representation in Cairo.

——————————————–
IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: www.imra.org.il

Is President Obama a friend of the Jews and Israel?

By: Morton Klein, Nat’l President Zionist Org. of America
Dr. Daniel Mandel, Director, Center for Middle East Policy

Let’s look at the evidence:

Last week, the Obama Administration issued talking points for the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, where it referred to those struck by terrorism whether in New York or Nairobi, Bali or Belfast, Mumbai or Manila, or Lahore or London. Conspicuously absent was the name of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem or Sderot, which have been hit by terrorists, not once, but hundreds of times!

As a single instance, this omission might be unremarkable. In fact, however, omitting mention of Israel fits a pattern.

When running for President, then-Senator Obama referred in his July 2008 Berlin speech to the need to dismantle the [terrorist] networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York. Again, no Israel.

It seems hard to believe that these omissions could be anything other than intentional. After all, Israel has been a primary target of terrorists throughout the past decade. Almost 2,000 Israelis have been murdered by terrorists in this period and over 10,000 maimed or disfigured. In per capita terms, far more Israelis have been murdered by terrorists than Americans were murdered in 9/11.

Obama also omits Israel in other contexts. Thus, when Haiti was struck by a calamitous earthquake in January 2010, Israel’s relief efforts were exceptional, only matched by those of the United States, and were singled out for praise by former President Clinton. However, in praising these relief efforts, Obama omitted any mention of Israel, saying only that help continues to flow in, not just from the United States but from Brazil, Mexico, Canada, France, Colombia, and the Dominican Republic, among others.

While Obama has more or less consistently failed to hold accountable or penalize the PA for incitement to violence against Israel, he has been emphatic and repetitive attacking Jewish housing projects in eastern Jerusalem as an obstacle to peace. His Administration has used the terms condemn, an insult and an affront when expressing disagreement with Israel on this issue, terms never used about other allies.

That Obama blames Israel, not the Palestinians, for the absence of peace is obvious. In a January 2010 interview, despite Israel’s acceptance in-principle of a Palestinian state, readiness to negotiate and instituting an unprecedented 10-month Jewish construction freeze in Judea and Samaria, Obama said Israel had made no bold gestures.

In a March 2011 meeting with Jewish leaders (attended by Mort Klein), Obama contended that Israel’s [Palestinian] partner is sincere in wanting a peaceful settlement, while asking his Jewish interlocutors to speak to your Israeli friends and relatives and search your souls to determine how badly do you really want peace. Israelis think this peace process is overrated.

Note also the contrast between his holiday messages to Jews and to Muslims. In his Rosh Hashanah message last year, Obama only once referred to Jews, not once to Judaism,‚ promoted a Palestinian state, and never mentioned the extraordinary contributions of Jews to the U.S.

In contrast, in his August 2010 Ramadan Message, Obama referred to Muslims‚ six times and to Islam‚ twice, stated that American Muslims have made extraordinary contributions to our country and praised Islam‚s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings and a faith known for great diversity and racial equality. (Huh?) Here, Obama, made no reference to what Muslims must do to achieve peace with Israel.

There are many other indicators of Obama evincing discomfort around Jewish matters. When, in May 2010, Obama signed the Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act, he did not mention that Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter, was beheaded by Islamist terrorists because he was a Jew and that he was forced to state in the video recorded of his gruesome murder that he was an American Jew. Instead, Obama merely referred to Pearl’s loss.

And let’s not forget Obama’s June 2009 Cairo speech, in which he compared the circumstances of Palestinians under Israeli rule to Jews under the Nazis and blacks under Apartheid. Nor his September 2009 UN speech, in which Obama coupled unwavering commitment to Israel with Israel respecting the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians.

These incidents, some important, some less so, have assumed a troubling pattern. They suggest that President Obama has a distaste or even hostility towards Jews and Israel. But should we be surprised? He spent twenty years absorbing the anti-Israel sermons of Pastor Jeremiah Wright, whom Obama has called a great man, his friend and mentor.

Morton A. Klein is National President of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). Dr. Daniel Mandel is Director of the ZOA’s Center for Middle East Policy.

Glenn Beck, Jon Voight and Rev. John Hagee in video visiting Israel

WALKING BEHIND THE ‘PILLARS OF FIRE’ WITH GLENN BECK
Redacted from article By Helen Freedman

II Video with Reverend John Hagee at the Glenn Beck event in Israel
(view below)

I The inspirational gatherings that were part of the Glenn Beck mission to Israel occurred against a very grim backdrop. It was ironic that the subject of ‘Restoring Courage’, the theme of Glenn Beck’s mission in Israel, was so starkly presented by the events that unfolded as I arrived in Israel on Thursday afternoon, August 18.

A series of terror attacks on buses and private cars had just occurred on the road from Be’er Sheva to Eilat that left many Israeli civilians and soldiers dead and wounded. Israel “retaliated,” followed by Kassam rockets and Grads falling all over Israel’s south.

Again, the Israeli government “retaliated.” Israel also apologized to the Egyptians for shooting back at terrorists dressed in Egyptian soldier uniforms. As of this writing, the Egyptians are violating the peace agreement with Israel as they proceed with the demilitarization of the Sinai, bringing forces and weapons into the area, (with the permission of Israel Defense Minister Ehud Barak and PM Netanyahu. Can you believe that? – Jsk),

How long will it be before these same Egyptian troops march on Israel? What will Israel’s response be if that happens? Will Israel’s leaders have the courage to protect Israel’s citizens?

Glenn Beck would answer these questions by urging Israel’s leaders not to fear world condemnation – to use the shields of courage and truth to banish fear – and not follow the path to surrender. He would encourage Israel to follow G-d’s ‘Pillars of Fire’ to which he referred in his powerful address at the DavidsonCenter outside the southern wall of the Old City in Jerusalem on Wednesday afternoon, August 24.

John Voight, who had joined us on Sunday night, was greeted enthusiastically by the crowd. He spoke of the new type of holocaust, where terror is used for political ends. Beck confirmed this by declaring, “If you stare evil in the eye, it backs down; it is a coward!” Beck declared, “This will be the generation that will say “Never Again” to the repeated holocausts against the Jews.

Beck charged everyone with the Responsibility to alter the course of history by being willing to speak the truth. When the “human rights” organizations exercise their double standard, we must declare, “Not in My Name!!” He called for truth seekers to link arms with him – to stand with courage – and to walk behind G-d’s ‘Pillars of Fire’ – to choose life – with no more lies.

The dynamic gathering was closed by Beck asking us to remember – and to teach these lessons to our children – and to obey G-d’s word. When we are asked, “Where were you when the world was on the edge again, when the West, Israel and the Jews were blamed again, we can say that “We stood with Israel.”

II Video with Reverend John Hagee and Glenn Beck

Maybe you forgot who’s Al Sharpton?

MSNBC Gives a Violent Racist a TV Show
FrontPage Magazine
Posted by Daniel Greenfield
Aug 18th, 2011

Imagine if MSNBC gave a TV show to a violent racist who led angry mobs against Jewish and Asian communities and businesses – Mobs that gathered outside a Jewish synagogue chanting “Heil Hitler” and “Death to the Jews.”

Unimaginable, right? Wrong. After years of accusing FOX News of racism, MSNBC gave a violent racist his own show. Of course MSNBC would never give a white racist like David Duke his own show. But they have no problem giving one to Al Sharpton.

Sharpton is many things—a cunning gutter clown, a hate-filled agitator and a savvy trader in political favors. Those qualities have taken him from street riots to a kingmaker role in the Democratic Party to the White House, where he has become its link to the black community.

Sharpton has eclipsed Jesse Jackson as the national agitator with the highest profile, adopting Jackson’s old role of middleman between the Democratic Party and the black community, and his business model of blackmailing corporations with boycott threats to fund his organization. The National Action Network, Sharpton’s organization, commands appearances by Obama and Biden, and true to his usual financial dealings remains deep in debt while paying him a six figure salary.

But there can be no talk of Sharpton without discussing the trail of debris behind him. Yankel Rosenbaum, the University of Melbourne student, stabbed and beaten to death on President Street among the stately manors of what was once known as Doctor’s Row, was the most famous victim of Sharpton’s Crown Height Pogrom, but not the only one.

There was Anthony Graziosi, a white, bearded Italian electronics salesman wearing a dark suit, who was mistaken for a Jew, and died for it. Bracha Estrin, a Holocaust survivor, who saw the mobs chanting “Heil Hitler” and “Death to the Jews” and believing that history was about to repeat itself, jumped rather than fall into their hands.Twenty years ago this August, a line of bodies was lowered into the ground. And Sharpton walked away with a higher national profile than ever.

Three years later, another round of racist protests at Freddy’s Fashion Mart with protesters screaming, “Burn down this Jew store!” led to an attack that killed seven minority employees. The Freddy’s protests were led by Morris Powell, head of the Buy Black Committee at Sharpton’s National Action Network. Powell had been previously put on trial for breaking the head of a Korean woman during one of his pickets.

Sharpton’s modus operandi was to create chaos, and then represent himself as the man who could stop it. The uglier the confrontations got, the more people died, the more credibility he gained. In 2001, he went from terrorizing entire neighborhoods to claiming control over the outcome of the mayoral election. Shortly thereafter the New York State Democratic Party made it clear that attacks on Sharpton were no longer acceptable. Senate candidates were expected to court the hate monger and did.

And then it was presidential candidates. Sharpton’s presidential run utilized the same tactics at the national level that had worked for him at the city and state level. He wasn’t out to win, just to cause enough chaos and uncertainty that the party would buy him off. And it worked.

It was a surprisingly short journey from a racist agitator who intimidated city authorities, to a state leader who intimidated the New York State Democratic Party, to a national leader who intimidated the entire Democratic Party.

Less than 10 years after the Freddy’s fire, Sharpton was addressing a national audience from the stage of the Democratic National Convention. Twenty years after the Crown Heights Pogrom, he is Obama’s unofficial outreach man to the black community and on the verge of getting his own full-time MSNBC show. A long career of bigotry, blood on his hands and a video of him discussing a drug deal are not a barrier.

Sharpton cuts a ridiculous figure at MSNBC. It isn’t every man who can make Ed Schultz look like a class act, but Sharpton manages that. His on air flubs have gone viral and what’s worse is that when he isn’t stumbling over words, he has nothing to say.

MSNBC got rid of Olbermann, but replaced him with an even bigger diva with a long history of racist blackmail. Sharpton is more controversial than Olbermann, but far less articulate. If Olbermann was trying to be Cronkite in drag, Sharpton doesn’t know what to do without a microphone and a mob. Sharpton’s name has attracted attention, where Cenk Uygur’s only brought bafflement, and as a reliable Obama toady he won’t cause any grief for the White House.

But the MSNBC gig exposes what a hollow man the Reverend Al is. He is the son of a Cadillac driving slumlord and a spectacularly implausible choice as a civil rights leader. His ridiculous hairstyle, jumpsuits and jewelry, and his over the top delivery were the tricks of a carnival showman.

The MSNBC gig allows Sharpton to deliver White House talking points to a national audience, but what happens in 2013 without a Democratic administration in need of messaging? Sharpton has gotten this far by presenting himself as the intermediary between the Ivy League liberal and the black street. In Obama’s words, “the voice of the voiceless.”

But what happens if the turnout isn’t there? Sharpton has been able to drive racist mobs to target defenseless minorities, but if he can’t drive voters to the polls, then he will suddenly be much less useful to MSNBC and the party it serves. The future of the “limousine racist” is closely tied to black turnout in 2012. And if he doesn’t deliver, Sharpton will be back screaming at hate filled crowds in Brooklyn. Back to the minor leagues of the party of hate.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.

And. let us not forget Sharpton history as related in a recent Jewish Press article redacted below:

THE SCHNEIER/SHARPTON SHOW
By Jewish Press Editorial Board
Aug 24 2011

… The idea of Al Sharpton sitting around a table soberly discussing relations between blacks and Jews borders on the bizarre. Who can forget that in Crown Heights it was Rev. Sharpton who loudly harangued blacks and encouraged a racial interpretation of the death of 7-year old Gavin Cato?

… Rev. Sharpton at the time also talked about “apartheid” in Crown Heights and challenged local Jews, whom he referred to as “diamond merchants,” to “pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house” if they wanted to duke it out.

… Of course, no recap of Rev. Sharpton’s career would be complete without mention of the ugly controversy that gave him his first taste of notoriety – the Tawana Brawley hoax.

As John Perazzo summed it up for FrontPageMag.com in a 2007 article,

… [Sharpton] injected himself into the case of 16-year-old Tawana Brawley, who in November 1987 claimed that she had been repeatedly raped [and brutalized] for four days by six white kidnappers, at least one of whom was wearing a police badge . It was among the most disturbing tales in living memory.

Al Sharpton quickly assumed the role of special adviser to Miss Brawley and thereafter worked closely with the girl’s attorneys, C. Vernon Mason (who, later in his career, would be convicted of 66 counts of professional misconduct and disbarred from the legal profession) and Alton Maddox (who has publicly expressed his profound hatred for white people).

Sharpton and the Brawley lawyers demanded that New York Governor Mario Cuomo appoint a special prosecutor to the case and publicly charged that “high-level” local law enforcement officials were involved in the crime – an allegation that led to numerous death threats against members of the Dutchess County police department.

In the autumn of 1988, after conducting an exhaustive review of the facts, a grand jury released its report showing beyond any doubt that the entire Tawana Brawley story had been fabricated, and that at least $1 million of New York taxpayers’ money had been spent to investigate a colossal hoax.

Rev. Sharpton, some twenty tears later, still denies his negative role in Crown Heights and also maintains that he made no substantive mistakes. All he will express is remorse for perhaps having used language that “at times has been over the line.”

(The current question is rather: When is MSNBC “over the line”?) jsk

The Associated Press’s distorted terminology

Aided and abetted by the Detroit Free Press

By Jerome S. Kaufman

The Associated Press’s distorted terminology

The Detroit Free Press of August 19, 2011, page 13A, captioned an article, Gun men cross Egyptian Desert, kill 8 in Israel.

It turned out the Free Press simply followed the terminology of the article created by Associated Press (AP) correspondent, Daniella Cheslow. But, they could have done a whole lot better than the charade of Associated Press terminology. In the article the AP used the term “gunmen” six times and another inappropriate term, “militants” an additional four times, but what was the article all about? Gunmen?

It so happens “gunman” in the dictionary, defines “gunman” as
1. A man who is armed with a gun, especially, unlawfully
2. A man who is skilled with a gun

In popular parlance, one frequently refers to a gun man as someone committing a robbery.

The Associated Press article then went on to describe what these particular “gun men” had done:

They illegally penetrated Israel’s border with Egypt and launched an attack against innocent Israeli civilians killing 7 people with the actual intent to kill as many as possible.

The “gunmen” carefully planned an attack against a civilian bus that was on the way to Eilat, a tourist town in southern Israel. No robbery was attempted nor in the plans – only the blatant killing of innocents.

The “gunmen” set up an extensive ambush along a 300 yard strip of the bus’s route. They were armed with automatic weapons, grenades and suicide bomb belts. They also rigged a roadside bomb under a parked Jeep.

How is it that the obviously more pertinent and accurate term “terrorists” or more precisely Palestinian Terrorists, never entered the terminology of this article? Is the Associated Press (and the Detroit Free Press) really that anti-Israel that they refuse to tell the world exactly what Israelis have been up against every moment of their lives – ever since the re-birth of the Jewish nation in 1948? Unfortunately, these Palestinian TERRORIST acts are nothing new.

Furthermore, the extent of the terrorism has never had any correlation with how many Jews lived in Israel or how much land they have regained of the G-d given land that was supposed to have been theirs, in the first place.

Of additional interest, in the very last paragraph of the article, was a quote from Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, no friend of Israel or the Jews since she took off her hat as the Senator for New York State.

Secretary Clinton condemned what she called, “pre-meditated acts of terrorism against innocent civilians,” an obvious truism that, for some inexcusable reason, had evidently not occurred to the Associated Press or the Detroit Free Press.

So much for what the naive innocently consider objective news reporting.

Jerome S. Kaufman, Editor, Israel Commentary

Israel Bashers note: Israel Defense Forces training US Marines

Israel Bashers note: Israel Defense Forces training US Marines

Company of U.S. Marines comes to Israel for month of intensive training with IDF at Urban Warfare Training Center

Author: Rotem Eliav – IDF

August 14, 2011

The narrow streets and tall cement buildings of the world-renowned IDF Urban Warfare Training Center echoed with shouts in flawless English last week as U.S. Marine Corps soldiers delved into another close-quarters-battle drill. As part of the cooperation between IDF ground forces and the U.S. Marine Corps force stationed in Europe, a company of U.S. Marines came to Israel for a month of intensive training alongside IDF soldiers at IDF facilities. Dividing their time between the Adam Base in central Israel and the Tze’elim Base in the south, the soldiers trained in urban warfare, reconnaissance and target shooting.

As they embarked on a training exercise at the UWTC, Platoon Sgt. Robert Hattenbach explained, “We’ve never been to a mock town like that of the IDF.” He noted the facility’s size and unique structure. “It’s important for our soldiers to train in different sites, preparing them for anything,” he said. The Marines were thrilled to train at the city, raving about its realistic feel.

A smoke grenade hit the floor, rapidly secreting thick smoke of a vibrant color used for camouflage against the lurking enemy. Yelling out commands, M4s ready, Marines snuck from building to building, clearing out every room and securing their objective. The success of the operation is determined by the captain, and the “enemy” is a squad of the Marines platoon, hiding inside each multiple story building, waiting for the other squads to find them. “By training here, we can better combat terrorism in any area and field,” Hospital Corpsman HM1 Raymond Price elaborated. “Coming to Israel has been an inspirational trip. It’s beautiful to see how Israel has managed to preserve so many years of history, culture and tradition.”

“This trip was a serious wake up call,” said Sgt. Hattenbach. “The instructors at the Adam Base took the time to explain to us what’s been going on in Israel and we realized that Israeli people are just like us. We now better understand what Israel really is and when we go back to the U.S. we can tell people that.”

During earlier exercises that involved IDF forces, the U.S. Marines were impressed by their Israeli counterparts. “The tactics used by the snipers and special forces are much more efficient,” said Cpl. Lombard. “They also focus more on the safety of each individual soldier rather than the mission.”

The company is one of the only young Marines units; all at around 19 years old, they are close in age to IDF soldiers and were able to form close bonds. However, unlike IDF soldiers, the Marines volunteered to enlist. “We have a responsibility for our country,” the Marines said, “You can’t just sit at home hearing of everything going on in the world and remain idle.”

This particular company, the Marine Corps Fast Team Security Forces, enlisted for five years, three of which they spend deployed to Europe or Africa. After further infantry training, they are sent to battle fronts in either Iraq or Afghanistan.Before departing Israel, the company will go for a well-deserved rest at the Dead Sea.

http://www.idf.il/1283-12731-EN/Dover.aspx


IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis

Grossly overpaid and overrated ADL’s Abe Foxman

August 18, 2011

The Anti-Defamation League’s Flat-Footed, Off-Key Shouter

Redacted from an open letter to the head of the ADL, denouncing his condemnations of those who see Sharia as a threat to American values and liberty.

Grossly overpaid and overrated ADL’s Abe Foxman

Alyssa A. Lappen

Dear Mr. Foxman,

From Rabbi Samuel of Babylonia to Rabbi Gershom of Germany, scholars throughout Jewish history taught the people to adapt to their host nations — and never demand the reverse. Rabbis also prized those students blessed with generosity and sufficient wisdom and humility to admit their errors and apologize to injured parties. No one is perfect, of course, but they correctly tutored Jewish men and women that those trying to achieve these charitable goals (among others) would at least reach goodness.

Alas, as a native of Vilna, Lithuania and child survivor of the Holocaust, none could have shouted more obstreperously than did your Aug. 10 Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) op-ed, headlined “Shout down the Sharia myth makers.”
Leaders do not shout. They speak, listen and continue to learn. Through off-key cheer-leading, you merely highlighted your own ignorance.

“The separation of church and state embodied in U.S. and state constitutions,” you wrote, renders completely unnecessary, proposed “anti-Sharia bills” in several states. Our constitution already “prohibits our courts from applying or considering religious law in any way that would constitute government advancement of or entanglement with religious law.”

Obviously, it would contradict every bedrock American principle to force any U.S. resident — whether citizen, legal resident, or illegal alien — to unwillingly comply with religious law. On this we agree. There, our agreement ends.

For you also allege that the bills — addressing recently exposed U.S. state court outrages imposing foreign laws that infringed upon constitutional law and universal human rights alike — were based not on reality or actual decisions. The bills rest on “prejudice and ignorance,” you claim, advanced through “myth making … about the threat of Sharia” in the U.S. These ills, you further assert, have effected “camouflaged bigotry” against Islam and Muslims.

Theoretically, American courts should strictly adhere to U.S. constitutional law concerning any and all religious practices, edicts or canons. But the record could not be more clear: they too often err on the side of foreign law — and make no apology.

Criminal defendants asked U.S. courts, as I noted to you in March 2011, to substitute Islamic laws in lieu of domestic statutes. In Massachusetts, a federal court denied the motion of jihad-financiers to excuse their terror-funding tax fraud via First Amendment religious freedom guarantees, which they asserted to protect their rights to provide Islamically-mandated “charity.”

Based on sharia, however, a New Jersey court did absolve wife beating and rape before that state’s appeals court reversed its ruling. And a Florida court similarly ordered parties in a civil dispute to follow Islamic, not U.S. law.

Face it, Mr. Foxman: for decades, U.S. courts have also miserably failed Muslim women and children on foundational precepts. On Mar. 24, 1986, for example, Laila Malak lost her 14-year old son and 9-year-old daughter when California’s appeals bench enforced a Beirut sharia custody ruling — given without her knowledge or participation, and allowing only 15 days from her post-facto notification to mount what would almost assuredly have been a futile “appeal.”

Sharia courts always give custody of minor children to fathers, a fact mentioned in footnote 2 to the California’s appeals bench decision. Married to Abdul in 1970 in Beirut, Laila in 1976 fled its bloody religious war with him and their son Fadi, and bore Ruha Jan. 25, 1977, in Abu Dhabi.

In July 1982, without Abdul’s permission (and therefore against Islamic law), Laila moved with her children to her brother’s San Jose home, where she filed for a divorce and custody. Santa Clara county superior court denied three attempts by Abdul to enforce a Nov. 1982 Abu Dhabi sharia order that gave him custody, without due process, Laila’s knowledge or court consideration of the children’s “best interests.”

Sharia courts are not “similar in nature” to U.S. courts, Mr. Foxman. As strictly Islamic judiciaries — neither secular nor civil — these dictatorial forums often force religious law on unwilling victims without recourse. Likely, Laila Malak has never seen her kids again. By contrast, Jewish law would not allow this; nor would a Jewish Beit Din (religious court) ask that its decision replace U.S. criminal, civil or secular law.

Since the 1970s, in dozens of similar cases, American courts nationwide applied sharia in lieu of constitutional laws. Albeit incomplete, a review of state courts and appellate benches produced manifold instances of “unconstitutional application of foreign and religious law in our judicial system.”

Whatever their total, one cannot accurately describe cases unearthed thus far, as “a proverbial solution in search of a problem,” as you want us to believe. For the women and children affected they were life-destroying cataclysms.

No American, nor any Jewish leader, should accept that. You head an institution founded to defend and protect the Jewish people from anti-Semitism. Mr. Foxman, in Islamic nations, sharia laws implement institutional discrimination against Jewish people and other non-Muslims. Sharia demands and requires non-Muslim subservience. Who are you to defend it? How dare you?

Sincerely yours,

Alyssa A. Lappen
Investigative journalist and poet

Sen. Patrick Leahy declares his mis-guided anti-Israel policy recommendations

Zionist Org. of America criticizes Sen. Leahy for Seeking Cut in U.S. Aid to Elite Israel Defense Forces.

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=1303

But Leahy supported increased aid to the Palestinian Authority

Redacted from a press release by Morton Klein, Pres. ZOA
August 17, 2011

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has criticized Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) for promoting a bill that seeks to cut from the U.S. foreign assistance legislation for 2012 the component from U.S. military aid to Israel that is earmarked for three elite Israel Defense Forces (IDF) units – the Israeli Navy’s Shayetet 13 unit, the undercover Duvdevan unit and the Israel Air Force’s Shaldag unit. These units have been on the front lines protecting Israeli citizens in counter-terrorist operations, hunting down terrorists and securing Israel’s borders.

In contrast, Senator Leahy has never called for reducing aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA), despite the PA’s continuing failure to arrest terrorists, outlaw terrorists groups, end the promotion of hatred and violence against Israel and its recently signed unity agreement with Hamas. In fact, he has supported increased aid to the PA.

The ZOA has noted that Senator Leahy’s effort to defund these IDF units has emerged under pressure in his home state from anti-Israel activists seeking to criminalize Israeli self-defense. These activists have sought to have Israel declared guilty of human rights abuses last year when the Israeli Navy’s Shayetet 13 unit lawfully intercepted the Gaza-bound Turkish ship Mavi Mamara to ensure it was free of weaponry. Pro-Hamas operatives and other extremists on board carried out a pre-planned assault upon the Israeli boarding party, leading to the death of nine of the assailants in the resulting clash.

Leahy, who heads the Senate Appropriations Committee’s sub-committee on foreign operations, was the principle sponsor of a 1997 bill prohibiting the United States from providing military assistance or funding to foreign military units suspected of human rights abuses or war crimes.

In recent years, Senator Leahy has been sharply critical of Israel, including of Operation Cast Lead, the counter-offensive launched against Hamas in Gaza following thousands of rockets fired into southern Israel over preceding years. Leahy claimed that Israel had a right to self-defense but then criticized Israel merely for imposing a blockade on Gaza, saying that it had failed to change Hamas policies.

He did not ask whether the blockade’s effort to reduce the flow of weaponry to Hamas had been successful. Leahy also claimed that, “The blockade was not coupled with an effective strategy to address the underlying causes of the conflict.” Leahy found Hamas actions “deplorable” but did not say that Hamas needs to “address the underlying causes” of the conflict by ceasing to be a genocide-seeking terrorist movement calling in its Charter for the world-wide murder of Jews.

Unsurprisingly, Leahy has become very close to J Street, the extremist, left-wing lobby which falsely claims to be pro-Israel while having urged Obama not to veto anti-Israel resolutions in the UN, refused to support Israel’s 2008-9 defensive military operations against Hamas in Gaza and which has lobbied against sanctions on Iran.

ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, “Senator Leahy has shown in recent years a propensity to blame Israel for the Arab war on Israel so it is therefore perhaps not surprising that he has now sought to penalize Israel for defending itself, as in the case of the Mavi Mamara affair.

“Now, Senator Leahy has added fuel to the fire by seeking to penalize the brave, professional Israeli military forces that actually perform the dangerous and vital task of protecting Israeli civilians, the first duty of an Israeli government. He seeks to defund parts of the IDF on the basis of allegations of human rights abuses by long-term, hardened, anti-Israel extremists.

“The IDF is not only the indispensible defense force of Israel, it is also an amazingly valuable U.S. ally whose combat experience, innovation and intelligence-gathering have been of immense value to the United States and the U.S. armed forces. The Israeli forces that have had the most experience of dealing with ruthless, blood-thirsty terrorists are precisely the elite units that Senator Leahy has specifically sought to defund.

Great News on Gov. Rick Perry’s Foreign Policy Record

Redacted from article by Reid Smith
The American Spectator, August 11, 2011

Great News on Gov. Rick Perry’s Foreign Policy Record

Talking the Hawk: Regarding Rick Perry’s Foreign Policy

As we all know, this is a big week for GOP contenders. Thursday night’s debate and Saturday’s straw poll are important indicators for the media and Republican establishment as a sneak preview of their future candidate through the prism of perception. Of course, the straw poll is rigged through a stilted system of participatory imbursement — don’t forget Mitt Romney​’s hollow victory in the 2007 Ames ballot — but a win’s a win and one’s performance can fundamentally make or break a candidate’s media image.

Of course, one big name is conspicuously absent from the grand old party held this week in the Hawkeye State. With a campaign rollout planned for South Carolina, New Hampshire and Texas, Rick Perry​ threatens to overshadow the traditional kickstart to the Republican nomination. It’s rumored that the longtime Texas governor may augur up his presidential intentions in South Carolina on Saturday, before formally declaring next week in his home state. Needless to say, whoever comes out on top in the straw poll is bound to share headlines with Governor Perry​.

With Perry’s candidacy looming, some of us international relations wonks have begun to take note of his foreign policy positions. As governor, Perry has been quite the internationalist, taking his traveling sales-pitch to China, Mexico, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Qatar, France and Sweden to support free-market, free trade investment in the great state of Texas.

In a 2009 debate against primary opponent Kay Bailey Hutchinson​, Perry plainly stated that his faith required him to support Israel. This latter statement was bolstered by his trip to the Holy Land where he accepted the Defender of Jerusalem Award before breaking bread with then-President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He put his medal where his mouth is on June 28, 2011, when he wrote Attorney General Eric Holder encouraging him to prosecute Americans who would participate in the “unacceptable provocation” of a Gaza Flotilla against Israel.

Now, Foreign Policy is reporting that former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has introduced Perry to a cabal of would-be national security strategists including former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith, former NSC expert William Luti, former Assistant U.S. Attorney and National Review columnist Andrew McCarthy​, the Heritage Foundation’s Asia expert Peter Brookes​, and former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalizad. Rumsfeld’s office confirmed the group gathered last week in Austin to provide Perry with his first national security briefing as a potential presidential candidate.

As governor, Perry has suggested the deployment of American troops to Mexico to control drug violence and proceeded with the execution of a Mexican citizen, despite impassioned requests from their government, President Obama​, the International Court of Justice and former President George W. Bush to stay the sentence.

Understood in context of the hard-line stance he’s taken on matters south of the Rio Grande, his national security team suggests Perry’s shaping up as the traditional defense hawk many conservative have been clamoring for in an age of Obama.

Reid Smith has worked as a research associate specializing on U.S. policy in the Middle East and as a political speechwriter. A doctoral student and graduate associate with the University of Delaware’s Department of Political Science and International Relations, he currently writes for the Foreign Policy Association.

Obama’s hollow claim of commitment to Israel’s security

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=1184

By MORTON KLEIN AND DANIEL MANDEL
08/01/2011

For a year, Obama prohibited any new US sanctions to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons – a looming existential threat to both Israel and the US.

Is President Barack Obama committed to Israel’s security? Reassuring bromides to that effect in his recent speeches are nullified by specific statements that spell out dangerous Israeli concessions and disregard for Israeli vital interests. Worse, the administration’s wider Middle East policies further denude those commitments of meaning.

Thus, when Obama said Israel must have secure, recognized borders “different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967,” many missed the point that this means little, when the new borders are to be “based on the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed swaps” and therefore be virtually indistinguishable from those lines. Indeed, with Palestinians unlikely to agree to any swaps, Obama gave the Palestinians a veto over any continued Israel presence beyond the pre-1967 lines.

Moreover, Obama’s unprecedented call for a Palestinian state to have “permanent Palestinian borders with… Jordan” would require Israel ceding the Jordan Valley, whose retention successive Israeli governments have regarded as vital–another first for a US president.

Obama has also become the first US president to suggest that issues of “territory and security” be agreed upon first, before proceeding to negotiations on all other matters, including Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees and their millions of descendants.

Upholding Israel’s basic security would also mean repudiating the repatriation of the refugees and their descendants. Bush did so in his May 2004 letter; Obama has not. On the contrary, he has supported the so-called Saudi peace plan, which demands not only a return to the 1967 lines, but also the return of all refugees and their descendants.

In May, Obama reiterated that the US “will hold the Palestinians accountable for their actions and their rhetoric.” But he never has – nor does he now.

When, in August 2009, Fatah held a conference in Bethlehem, reaffirming its refusal to accept Israel’s existence as a Jewish state, glorifying terrorists, insisting on the so-called ‘right of return,’ and rejecting an end of claims in any future peace agreement, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton astonishingly claimed that the conference showed “a broad consensus supporting negotiations with Israel and the two-state solution.”

When in 2010, the PA named a Ramallah square after terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, Clinton falsely claimed that this ceremony was initiated by a “Hamas-run municipality.” Refusing to identify the PA as responsible, Obama has not penalized it.

INDEED, FAR from holding Palestinians accountable, Obama has consistently rewarded them, increasing aid to almost $1 billion per year. A Palestinian Media Watch report just presented to the US Congress documents that, in May 2011 alone, the PA paid $5,207,000 in salaries to Palestinians in Israeli jails, including blood-soaked terrorists. Last year the US provided $225 million to the general Palestinian budget from which these salaries are paid.

If Obama was genuine about holding the PA accountable, he would be demanding the disbanding of Fatah’s own Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades – a US- recognized terrorist group. He would demand the abrogation of the PA’s unity agreement with Hamas (which calls for a genocide of Jews) as a precondition of any future talks. He has done neither.

It is also difficult to imagine what conception of American and Israeli security interests led Obama in January to ditch Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and call for political “transition… now” when protests erupted in Cairo. Still less clear is why his administration spoke immediately of involving “non-secular actors” – a clear allusion to the Muslim Brotherhood – given its virulent hostility to the US and Israel. Now, Obama has legitimized the Brotherhood by initiating contacts with it.

THE NET result is that Egypt is on the road from lukewarm ally and peace-maker to a dependable enemy – one to which Obama has announced the sale of 125 state-of-the-art M1A1 Abrams tanks. It is also disturbing that Obama has not pressured Egypt to close its Gaza border at Rafah, whose recent opening has enabled the flow of weaponry into Hamas-run Gaza.

For a year, Obama prohibited any new US sanctions to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons – a looming existential threat to both Israel and the US. Indeed, further measures which must be taken to stop Iran is precisely what Obama left untouched in his recent speeches.

Thus Obama’s words and deeds not only fail to match his stated commitment to Israel’s security – they negate it.

Morton A. Klein is National President of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). Dr. Daniel Mandel is Director of the ZOA’s Center for Middle East Policy and author of H.V. Evatt & the Establishment of Israel (London: Routledge, 2004).

The Budget Crisis as in Ancient Rome

Republican Virtue

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=1129

BY WILLIAM KRISTOL, Editor

The Weekly Standard
AUG 1, 2011, VOL. 16, NO. 43

Tempora, mores! O Cicero, (MARCUS TULLIUS CICERO, 106 BC–43 BC) if thou couldst be with us now! The corruption of our age is approaching that of your own! Who today speaks for the ancient Roman—and modern American—virtues of civic duty and personal responsibility?

Here’s who: the House Republicans.

The federal government has a problem. It’s hitting a debt ceiling limit passed into law last year by the Democratic Congress, and signed by President Obama. It’s doing so because of appropriations passed by that same Democratic Congress, and signed by that same Democratic president. Have the president and Senate Democrats proposed any legislation to deal with this problem? No.

House Republicans, on the other hand, did pass a budget earlier this year. Unfortunately, federal spending has gotten so out of control that even if the Republican budget were to become law, the federal government would have to borrow more money for several years to come. So House Republicans last week stepped up to the plate (to use a metaphor that might be unfamiliar to Cicero).

Their constituents hate the idea of voting to raise the debt ceiling. But the House GOP did what had to be done. They passed H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011. The legislation contains a debt ceiling increase and accompanies it with serious spending cuts, restraints, and the promise of a forthcoming vote on a constitutional amendment to balance the budget by capping spending. The House Republicans (and five Democrats) did their duty, in accordance with the procedures of Congress and in the light of day, proposing and passing legislation that their fellow citizens could read, debate, and judge.

And they are the only ones who’ve done their duty. Having failed to pass a budget for two years, Senate Democrats have done nothing to deal with the debt limit. President Obama has in effect withdrawn his February budget proposal, and hasn’t submitted a new one.

So the morally bankrupt leaders of our fiscally bankrupt government meet feverishly behind closed doors, out of sight of the public they’re supposed to represent, to figure out how to paper over the mess they’ve created. Gangs of senators occasionally emerge from their hideouts to announce deals that would raise taxes and gut defense in response to a crisis caused by domestic spending and entitlements.

The gangs roam the halls of the Capitol, invading television studios in order to terrorize the citizenry with the prospect of default and mayhem. They then retreat to their lairs, while Beltway insiders shower them with praise and scorn actual legislation passed by the House in accord with the norms of democratic government.

Enough! No more gangs! No more deals! Gangster government is unworthy of a democratic republic. We elect leaders, not dealers. These elected officials are responsible for the fiscal future of the United States. They aren’t negotiating with foreign enemies, when secrecy is often necessary. They aren’t authorizing covert intelligence operations, which have to be planned behind closed doors. They are supposed to be accountable to the people—much as many of our elites may resent that fact.

And so: All honor to the House Republicans. They refuse to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare how fiscal solvency and budgetary probity can be restored.

Meanwhile, liberal elites (and some conservative ones) tremble at the prospect of an honest debate on how to restore sound and responsible government. So, on July 22 Senate Democrats voted, 51-46, to table the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. No amendments were proposed or debated. No alternatives were offered. Democrats now stand before us as the party that, when faced with a deadline and a crisis, vote to .  .  . table.

For the next year and a half, real progress on the budget will be limited by the president and the Senate majority we have. The debt limit presumably will be increased, and the best House Republicans may be able to do is to insist on some spending cuts, prevent defense from being gutted, and keep tax burdens from rising.

Still: All honor to the House Republicans, who had the coolness, foresight, and capacity to introduce and pass legislation that is a rebuke and a stumbling block to the gangs of senators and the secret dealmakers. And to lay the groundwork for victory for the forces of limited and responsible government in 2012.

Obama, his appointees and George Soros conspire to pervert US Constitution to Socialism

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=990

More White House Ties to Soros-Funded Organization

By Aaron Klein
The Jewish Press, July 8 2011

Still more White House officials, including Attorney General Eric Holder, have ties to an effort funded by billionaire George Soros to push for a new, “progressive” U.S. Constitution.

This column previously reported that President Obama’s regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, maintained extensive ties to Soros’s funding, particularly with regard to a movement that openly seeks to create a “progressive” consensus on what the U.S. Constitution “should” provide by the year 2020.

Now, it has emerged that Lisa Brown, Obama’s staff secretary, served as executive director of the Soros-funded American Constitution Society, ACS, a progressive legal organization that was behind the Constitution scheme.

Also, Holder has been closely tied to the ACS, serving on the group’s board of directors and even keynoting its 10th anniversary national convention earlier this month. In 2008, Holder also keynoted its convention. At that event, he reportedly urged young lawyers to get involved in the liberal legal network, saying America would soon be “run by progressives.”

In April 2005, Sunstein opened up a conference at Yale Law School entitled “The Constitution in 2020,” which sought to change the nature and interpretation of the Constitution by that year. The event was sponsored by Soros’s Open Society Institute and the Center for American Progress, which is led by John Podesta, who served as co-chair of Obama’s presidential transition team. Podesta’s center is said to be highly influential in helping to craft White House policy.

The Yale event on the Constitution was also sponsored by the ACS, which has received more that $2.2 million from Soros’s Open Society since 2002.

Sunstein himself has been pushing for a new socialist-style U.S. bill of rights that, among other things, would constitutionally require the government to offer each citizen a “useful” job in the farms or industries of the nation. According to Sunstein’s new bill of rights, the U.S. government can also intercede to ensure every farmer can sell his product for a good return. It also is granted power to act against “unfair competition” and monopolies in business.

All this and more is contained in Sunstein’s 2004 book, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’S Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever. In the work, Sunstein advanced the idea that welfare rights, including some controversial inceptions, be granted by the state.

Ronnie Reagan’s advice to next Republican Presidential Candidate

Reagan Was Right

BY THE EDITORS, The Weekly Standard
JUN 27, 2011, VOL. 16, NO. 39

We at The Weekly Standard have had plenty of advice for Republicans on how to criticize (and occasionally to support) Obama administration foreign and defense policies. But as the GOP presidential campaign heats up, it seems that some candidates are more tempted to imitate the foreign policy orientation of George McGovern or John Kerry than of Ronald Reagan. So we thought it might be useful to remind them of what Reagan said when he took on and defeated a Democratic incumbent.

Here, then, are excerpts from Ronald Reagan’s acceptance speech to the 1980 Republican Convention:

…”When we move from domestic affairs and cast our eyes abroad, we see an equally sorry chapter on the record of the present administration. .  .  .

America’s defense strength is at its lowest ebb in a generation. .  .  .

Our .  .  . allies, looking nervously at the growing menace from the East, turn to us for leadership and fail to find it. .  .  .

Adversaries large and small test our will and seek to confound our resolve, but we are given weakness when we need strength; vacillation when the times demand firmness.

The Carter (Obama) administration lives in the world of make-believe. Every day, drawing up a response to that day’s problems, troubles, regardless of what happened yesterday and what will happen tomorrow.

The rest of us, however, live in the real world. It is here that disasters are overtaking our nation without any real response from Washington. .  .  .

I’ll tell you where I stand. I do not favor a peacetime draft or registration, but I do favor pay and benefit levels that will attract and keep highly motivated men and women in our volunteer forces and an active reserve trained and ready for an instant call in case of an emergency.

There may be a sailor at the helm of the ship of state, but the ship has no rudder. Critical decisions are made at times almost in comic fashion, but who can laugh? Who was not embarrassed when the administration handed a major propaganda victory in the United Nations to the enemies of Israel, our staunch Middle East ally? .  .  .

Who does not feel a growing sense of unease as our allies, facing repeated instances of an amateurish and confused administration, reluctantly conclude that America is unwilling or unable to fulfill its obligations as the leader of the free world?

Who does not feel rising alarm when the question in any discussion of American foreign policy is no longer, “Should we do something?” but “Do we have the capacity to do anything?”

The administration which has brought us to this state is seeking your endorsement for four more years of weakness, indecision, mediocrity, and incompetence. No American should vote until he or she has asked, is the United States stronger and more respected now than it was three-and-a-half years ago? Is the world today a safer place in which to live? .  .  .

We are not a warlike people. Quite the opposite. We always seek to live in peace. We resort to force infrequently and with great reluctance—and only after we have determined that it is absolutely necessary. .  .  . But neither can we be naïve or foolish. .  .  . We know only too well that war comes not when the forces of freedom are strong, but when they are weak. It is then that tyrants are tempted. .  .  .

Let our friends and those who may wish us ill take note: The United States has an obligation to its citizens and to the people of the world never to let those who would destroy freedom dictate the future course of human life on this planet. I would regard my election as proof that we have renewed our resolve to preserve world peace and freedom. This nation will once again be strong enough to do that. .  .  .

Reagan’s unapologetic defense of American strength is as timely today as it was three decades ago. Which Republican candidate will make a name for himself (or herself) by delivering a suitably updated version of this message?