From the London Telegraph (U.K.):

Obama's Top 10 Insults Against Israel

by Nile Gardiner

Last week Israel celebrated its 62nd year as a nation, but there was major cause for concern amid the festivities as the Israeli people faced the looming menace of a nuclear-armed Iran, as well as the prospect of a rapidly deteriorating relationship with Washington. The Israel-bashing of the Obama administration has become so bad that even leading Democrats are now speaking out against the White House. New York Senator Chuck Schumer blasted Barack Obama’s stance towards Israel in a radio interview last week, stating his “counter-productive” Israel policy “has to stop”.

At the same time a poll was released by Quinnipiac University which showed that US voters disapproved of the president’s Israel policy by a margin of 44 to 35 percent. According to the poll, “American voters say 57 – 13 percent that their sympathies lie with Israel and say 66 – 19 percent that the president of the United States should be a strong supporter of Israel.”

I recently compiled a list of Barack Obama’s top ten insults against Britain, America’s closest ally in the world. This is a sequel of sorts, a list of major insults by the Obama administration against America’s closest ally in the Middle East, Israel. As I wrote previously on Obama’s treatment of both Britain and Israel:

In the space of just over a year, Barack Obama has managed to significantly damage relations with America’s two closest friends, while currying favour with practically every monstrous dictatorship on the face of the earth. The doctrine of “smart power” has evolved into the shameless appeasement of America’s enemies at the expense of existing alliances. There is nothing clever about this approach – it will ultimately weaken US global power and strengthen the hand of America’s enemies, who have become significantly emboldened and empowered by Barack Obama’s naïve approach since he took office.

The Obama presidency is causing immense damage to America’s standing in the free world, while projecting an image of weakness in front of hostile regimes. Its treatment of both Israel and Britain is an insult and a disgrace, and a grim reflection of an unbelievably crass and insensitive foreign policy that significantly undermines the US national interest.

So here’s my top 10 list of Obama administration insults against Israel after just 15 months in power:

1. Obama’s humiliation of Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House

In March, the Israeli Prime Minister was humiliated by Barack Obama when he visited Washington. As The Telegraph reported, “Benjamin Netanyahu was left to stew in a White House meeting room for over an hour after President Barack Obama abruptly walked out of tense talks to have supper with his family”, after being presented with a list of 13 demands. As I wrote at the time:

This is no way to treat America’s closest ally in the Middle East, and a true friend of the United States. I very much doubt that even third world tyrants would be received in such a rude fashion by the president. In fact, they would probably be warmly welcomed by the Obama White House as part of its “engagement” strategy, while the leaders of Britain and Israel are frequently met with arrogant disdain.

2. Engaging Iran when Tehran threatens a nuclear Holocaust against Israel

In contrast to its very public humiliation of close ally Israel, the Obama administration has gone out of its way to establish a better relationship with the genocidal regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which continues to threaten Israel’s very existence. It has taken almost every opportunity to appease Tehran since it came to office, and has been extremely slow to respond to massive human rights violations by the Iranian regime, including the beating, rape and murder of pro-democracy protesters.

3. Drawing a parallel between Jewish suffering in the Holocaust with the current plight of the Palestinians

In his Cairo speech to the Muslim world, President Obama condemned Holocaust denial in the Middle East, but compared the murder of six million Jews during World War Two to the “occupation” of the Palestinian territories, in a disturbing example of moral equivalence:

“On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.”

4. Obama’s attack on Israeli “occupation” in his speech to the United Nations

In his appalling speech to the UN General Assembly last September, President Obama dedicated five paragraphs to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, without once referring directly to Palestinian terrorism by name, but declaring to loud applause “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” He also lambasted the Israeli “occupation”, and drew a connection between rocket attacks on Israeli civilians with living conditions in Gaza. The speech served as a ghastly PR exercise aimed at appeasing anti-Israel sentiment in the Middle East, while bashing the Israelis over the head.

5. Obama’s accusation that Israel is the cause of instability in the Middle East

As The Wall Street Journal noted, “the Obama Administration seems increasingly of the view that Israel is the primary cause of instability in the Middle East”, citing a recent press conference where he stated:

“It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them. And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.”

6. The Obama administration’s establishment of diplomatic relations with Syria

While actively appeasing Iran, the Obama administration has also sought to develop closer ties with the other main state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East, Syria, establishing diplomatic relations with Damascus in February. Syria remains a major backer of Hamas and Hizbollah, both responsible for a large number of terrorist attacks against Israel.

7. Hillary Clinton’s 43-minute phone call berating Netanyahu

As The Telegraph reported, Hillary Clinton sought to dictate terms to Israel in the wake of Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Jerusalem:

“In a telephone call, Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, ordered Mr. Netanyahu to reverse a decision to build 1,600 homes for Israeli settlers in occupied East Jerusalem that sparked the diplomatic row. She also instructed him to issue a formal pledge that peace talks would focus on core issues such as the future of Jerusalem and the borders of a Palestinian state. In addition, the Israeli prime minister was urged to make a substantial confidence-building gesture to the Palestinians. Mrs. Clinton suggested this could take the form of prisoner releases, an easing of the blockade of Gaza and the transfer of greater territory in the West Bank to Palestinian control.”

Last time I checked, Israel was still an independent country, and not a colonial dependency of the Obama White House. Yet that still hasn’t stopped the Secretary of State from acting like an imperial Viceroy.

8. David Axelrod’s attack on Israeli settlements on “Meet the Press”

It is extremely unusual for a White House official to launch an attack on a close US ally on live television, but this is exactly what the President’s Senior Adviser David Axelrod did in an interview in March with NBC’s Meet the Press, designed to cause maximum humiliation to Israel, where he stated in reference to new settlement construction in East Jerusalem:

“This was an affront, it was an insult but most importantly it undermined this very fragile effort to bring peace to that region. For this announcement to come at that time was very destructive.”

9. Hillary Clinton’s call on Israel to show “respect”

As The Telegraph revealed, the Secretary of State lectured the Israelis at a dinner attended by the Israeli ambassador and the ambassadors of several Arab states in mid-April, urging Israel to “refrain from unilateral statements” that could “undermine trust or risk prejudicing the outcome of talks”. In Clinton’s words:

“Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu has embraced the vision of the two-state solution. But easing up on access and movement in the West Bank, in response to credible Palestinian security performance, is not sufficient to prove to the Palestinians that this embrace is sincere. We encourage Israel to continue building momentum toward a comprehensive peace by demonstrating respect for the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians, stopping settlement activity and addressing the humanitarian needs in Gaza.”

10. Robert Gibbs’ disparaging remarks about Israel

Not one to shy away from criticizing America’s friends when the opportunity arises, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs entered the fray in an interview on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace in March where he attacked the Israeli government for weakening “the trust that’s needed for both sides to come together and have honest discussions about peace in the Middle East.” In condescending terms he stated that Benjamin Netanyahu should start “coming to the table with constructive ideas for constructive and trustful dialogue about moving the peace process forward.”

Nile Gardiner is a Washington-based foreign affairs analyst and political commentator. He appears frequently on American and British television and radio, including Fox News Channel, CNN, BBC, Sky News, and NPR.

News and Notes (Arizona Edition)

1. So tell me, if you were Arizona, what would you do? You have a huge increase in crime, a huge increase in medical expenses, a huge outcry from law-abiding citizens and you have a federal government who basically is voting "present."

So what would you do?

2. Here is living proof that liberals have no clue: "

"Dear Arizona: If you don't change your immigration policy, I will have to stop drinking your enjoyable brand of iced tea," Twittered Jody Beth in Los Angeles.

Um, Ms. Beth? Perhaps your public school education didn't teach you to read the label, but Arizona Ice Tea is brewed in Nassau County, NY.

3. Has any real boycott ever really worked?

4. The Democrats are making a huge deal about this new Arizona law. In fact, John Kerry (did you know he served in Vietnam?) called it unpatriotic. In Kerry's world, writing a law that enforces a federal law is unpatriotic, but lying under oath about your fellow soldiers is perfectly "American."

Someone should tell John F. Kerry that there was a really good reason he lost the an unpopular George Bush.

5. For those who have tried to label the good people of Arizona as "Nazis" or "racists," here is the main part of the Arizona statute that has them all riled up:

"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…"

Exactly what part of that paragraph evokes herding people us and shooting them for being undesirables? Did the Nazis use "probable cause?" Did the Nazis use "reasonable suspicion?"

Last time I read Holocaust history - and believe me, I am very knowledgeable on the subject, the Nazis arrested you simply for being Jewish. At no time did they care whether you were, or weren't. If they thought you were, you were as good as dead. I'm sorry, but I don't see Hispanic concentration camps, or death marches happening in Arizona based on this law.

6. President Obama called the new Arizona law "stupid." This is the same man who called the Cambridge, MA police "stupid" for arresting his friend when he was assumed breaking into a house.

This President is so incompetent that he doesn't quite grasp the gravity of how much his words mean. His actions today will only serve two purposes - to alienate the citizens of Arizona, who already feel their federal government cares little about them and there safety, and it also serves to rile up the opposition, thinking that they have the President's support. This is not the way a true leader behaves.

Yet, we've seen it time and again with Obama. We see it with the way he deals with Iran and we've definitely seen it is the way he has taken sides in Israel. Because of his reckless disregard for our allies, Obama has already set back the peace process 30 years. Seriously, do you truly believe the Palestinians are interested in negotiating when they know now that Obama will demand everything they want from Israel?

Elections do mean something. Electing Obama has weakened our nation's strength exponentially. Why do you think Europeans like us better? Because we're "stronger" or because we've been taken down a peg, or two (or three or four).

7. President Calderon of Mexico is very upset at the State of Arizona, because of this new law. He said it opens "the door "to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement."

Do any of you know what the Mexican law is regarding illegal immigration? Take a look:

— The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset "the equilibrium of the national demographics." How's that for racial and ethnic profiling?

— If outsiders do not enhance the country's "economic or national interests" or are "not found to be physically or mentally healthy," they are not welcome. Neither are those who show "contempt against national sovereignty or security." They must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care.

— Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years' imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years' imprisonment. Foreigners may be kicked out of the country without due process and the endless bites at the litigation apple that illegal aliens are afforded in our country (see, for example, President Obama's illegal alien aunt — a fugitive from deportation for eight years who is awaiting a second decision on her previously rejected asylum claim).

— Law enforcement officials at all levels — by national mandate — must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens' arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.

— Ready to show your papers? Mexico's National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens' identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens.

According to Michelle Malkin:

"All of these provisions are enshrined in Mexico's Ley General de Poblacion (General Law of the Population) and were spotlighted in a 2006 research paper published by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy. There's been no public clamor for "comprehensive immigration reform" in Mexico, however, because pro-illegal alien speech by outsiders is prohibited."

Why is it that we're supposed to have open borders, but Mexico doesn't? Granted, we are a far superior country, as far as becoming prosperous and free. But before El Presidente opens his stupid mouth, he should practice what he preaches.

8. If you were a legal immigrant to this country, what would you think about this? Would you feel that you made a terrible mistake, abiding by the law while all these others came across illegally?

9. If concluded that all of those who are against this new law are so because they either haven't read the bill, hate conservatives so much that they will never agree on anything, simply need something to scream and protest about or are for complete open borders. Clearly, the politicians who call this law racist are only doing so to pander to those who will eventually voting, should Obama's amnesty pass. Nancy Pelosi is already trying to find new voters in Puerto Rico.

10. There is a certain arrogance in a President who claims it's racist to demand non-citizens to "show their papers" regarding citizenship, but has no problem whatsoever in having citizens "show their papers" to prove they have health insurance. This law is only intrusive in the case where the person is exhibiting unlawful behavior. But the health care law in intrusive for EVERYONE.

Now i have driven through Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. I have been stopped countless times by immigration officials along Interstate 10. One time, while driving a U-Haul, I was stopped, and had the truck thoroughly inspected. But I didn't complain. Why should I? I was doing nothing wrong and these men were simply doing their legally enforced law. So I had nothing to worry about.

Did they ask me for my "papers?" Hell yeah they did. And I supplied them with my state-issued driver's license and my proof of rental for the truck. I even showed them my automobile insurance card. I had no trouble with them and I was glad to help. When these leftists scream that the state of Arizona is being intrusive for "asking for papers," are they unaware that Americans everyday are asked for their licenses every time they are stopped by a cop? Isn't that intrusive also?

My problem with Democrats is that they are so transparent. They yelled and screamed when it was proposed that people show a picture ID at the polling booth. But why? Don't you have to show it when you use a credit card? How about when you enter a federal building? What about when you're stopped by a cop? Or when you board an airplane?

The real reason they don't want the voter ID law is because then there can be no voter fraud. If everyone must show their ID, then illegal aliens can't vote - or at least it becomes increasingly harder to do. It's a shameless tactic that calls into question the true integrity of the Democrat Party and yes, their patriotism.

Looking the other way at illegal immigration does not serve this country well. We are a nation of laws and when these laws are ignored, it leads to a lack of respect for the rule of law and eventual anarchy. The President swore, under oath, to uphold the constitution of the United States. Whether he likes it or not - and he has openly been critical of much of it - it is his duty to preserve and protect it. The Arizona law is nothing different than the federal law that is already on the books. It simply enforces that law - a law that the federal government has been derelict in enforcing. If he doesn't like it, he can propose a counter law and allow it to be voted on. But until such time that this law - a law that is overwhelmingly supported by the citizens of Arizona - it is his duty to keep the peace and preserve that law.

Whether he likes it or not.

American Idol Tuesday

Since I've gotten such an outstanding response to my entertainment posts, I figured I would return to blogging American Idol live.

Tonight was the annual "country night," this time featuring the music of Shania Twain. While Shania has been a very popular artist, she really hasn't been heard from much lately. Therefore, I fear most people watching the show will probably be unaware of much of the music that will be performed tonight. That is a serious disadvantage to the bottom rung of the competition. They will have to have, as Simon calls it, a "moment" in order to make any headway into the top two or three. If anyone has an advantage, it will be Aaron, who already has a country twang.

I'll post my top 5 over the weekend, as usual. But until then, here are my thoughts as I watch tonight.

1. Lee Dewyze -- Still the One

I was a bit concerned when Lee began his rendition of the Shania mega hit. He first sounded as if he was starting off key. However, it soon became evident that he was simply changing the tune up a bit. He also seemed to strain a bit when he hit his higher notes, but because of his passionate vocal style, he used that to hos advantage and performed a terrific song. --- B+

2. Michael Lynche -- It Only Hurts When I'm Breathing

Big Mike really is a big teddy bear sometimes. He connected very well with the ballad and he sang it with conviction and emotion. The judges agreed with what I was thinking, in fact - that he was reminiscent of Luther Vandross. I disagreed with Simon on the "wet" comment. After all, it was written by a woman. All in all, Mike did about as well as I've seen him. --- B+

3. Casey James -- Don't

Down to his acoustic guitar, Casey exhibited that same vulnerability that earned him so much praise a couple of weeks ago, when he performed "Jealous Guy." It was the perfect song for him to do and he didn't exceptionally well. It was worth another listen. I don't know if he is top 2 material, but he certainly put himself back in the competition. --- A

4. Crystal Bowersox -- No One Needs To Know

Crystal is clearly the most consistent performer on the show. Not once has she had a poor performance. While tonight was no exception, I was not as impressed as I was a week ago. The song is a sweet ditty, but a bit forgettable (geez, Simon just agreed). I also noticed she struggled to keep her breath this time around. It just didn't seem to connect as well as her other songs. But in her defense, she isn't a country singer and did her best. --- C+

5. Aaron Kelly -- You've Got a Way

Another slow song from the resident teenager. I was very concerned that since he seems to always go for the slow stuff, this would be a mistake. But boy did he surprise me tonight. With tremendous passion and emotion, Aaron may have performed his best one yet. Very well done. --- A-

6. Siobhan Magnus -- Any Man of Mine

Finally, someone actually went country tonight! While it wasn't her best vocal, the song allowed Siobhan to open up her higher range and invite the audience to party with her. I thought her lower register was a bit weak and her scream at the end tailed off a bit. But of course, that's what makes her so special. She was the only one tonight to perform the "woman of country righteous angst" that artists like Shania and Carrie Underwood have brought back to life. --- A-

Overall, I was impressed with the contestants tonight and thoroughly enjoyed the show. After thinking about it, I believe tomorrow night's bottom three will be Michael, Aaron and Casey - with Michael Lynche's Idol dreams coming to an end. However, it would not suprise me if Crystal also sees the bottom three, since many people will feel she's safe and not vote for her this week. Of course, that could happen to Lee and Siobhan as well.

Okay, I'm not African-American, but I believe that the color of ones skin doesn't make him greater, or less than anyone else. However, I hold those who fight stereotypes and stand up for basic human rights and dignity above all others. For this reason, I am a big fan of Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Kevin Jackson and Larry Elder, to name a few "persons of color" who are not shy about what they believe, in the face of a majority who call them "Uncle Tom's" or worse.

As an observant Jew, I find myself in a somewhat similar situation. The majority of my fellow Jews are extremely liberal and vote accordingly. Most of the non-observant Jews I have contact with are overwhelmingly supportive of President Obama and while they may say the right things about Israel (meaning, they are not in agreement with his current policies), they are not verbal enough, or strong enough to stand up for what they claim to believe in. Of course, there are exceptions. But those are few and far between.

As far as the men I listed above, what makes them so spectacular in my view is that they are conservative in an atmosphere where not only are they alone, but they are demonized by their own people. To me, this is the ultimate in bravery and I salute and admire each and every one of them. Her is an article written by Mr. Elder, which explains why he is who he is and why being a conservative is so important to him. I hope you will appreciate it as much as I do:

How Can a "Fellow Black Republican" Oppose Obama? (Townhall.com)

Mr. Elder,

I am shocked that you oppose Barack Obama and belong to the Republican Party. We must get over ourselves and realize there is room at the top for everyone and we must get there by helping each other -- instead of agreeing with policies and old politics that are proven not to work.

To endorse John McCain, a person who will not make it easier for the underprivileged, is just too much. How can a fellow black American feel this way?

Your Former Supporter

Dear Former Supporter,

Do you have any Republican friends, let alone black ones? If so, how many of them want to make it harder "for the underprivileged"?

You also might want to familiarize yourself with the history of the Democratic and Republican parties, and see which party has stood up longer for the rights of people of color. Do you know that Democrats opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution -- abolishing slavery, granting citizenship rights to newly freed slaves, and guaranteeing the right to vote (at least on paper) to blacks, respectively? Do you know that most of the politicians who stood for segregation were Southern Democrats? Do you know that the Ku Klux Klan was founded by Democrats, one of whose goals was to stop the spread of the Republican Party? Do you know that, as a percentage of the party, more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Do you know that inner-city parents want vouchers -- the right to determine where their children go to school? Do you know most Democrats, including Barack Obama, oppose this? Republicans, for the most part, support vouchers. Where vouchers have been tried, kids appear to perform better, with higher parental satisfaction. You tell me, how many things are more important than a child's education?

Do you know that 36 percent of babies aborted are black, while blacks make up 17 percent of live births? Do you know that polls show blacks are more pro-life than are whites? Yet the Democratic Party -- to which over 90 percent of blacks belong -- is the party of Roe v. Wade, requiring states to legalize abortion on demand. Do you know that Margaret Sanger, the founder of the organization that became Planned Parenthood, believed that poor blacks were inferior and that aborting their babies made our society better? Look it up.

Do you know that blacks stand to benefit more than whites through Social Security privatization, a position opposed by Obama but supported by McCain? Are you even familiar with the issue and what a powerful income-generating vehicle it would be for blacks? If not, take a look at the research done by the libertarian think tank Cato Institute and the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation.

Porous borders enable illegal aliens to enter our country and threaten the jobs and lower the wages of Americans, many of whom are unskilled people of color. Which party is more determined to deal with this -- Republicans or Democrats? Obama called the foes of the House anti-illegal immigration bill "ugly and racist." I did not support the bill, but vehemently object to characterizing those who did as "ugly and racist."

You speak of policies that have "proven not to work." What about the "war on poverty" that began in the '60s, the policies that Obama and his party want to continue and expand? Do you know that today 70 percent of black children and over 50 percent of Hispanics are born outside of wedlock? The welfare state -- which Democrats want to expand -- has played a huge role in discouraging marriage and destabilizing families.

Speaking of helping the "underprivileged," I'd suggest you read a book called "Who Really Cares," by Arthur C. Brooks. A non-Republican professor raised by Democrats, he examined the charitable spending habits of Democrats and Republicans. The results surprised him. Brooks found that Republicans give far more of their money and time for charitable purposes than do Democrats. And the giving is not confined to their churches or other houses of worship. This, by the way, has nothing to do with income. Poor Republicans give more than poor Democrats.

Compassion is not about making people dependent on government. Compassion is about encouraging personal responsibility, and getting people to understand that life is about making choices. Poverty does not cause crime. Crime causes poverty. Poverty does not cause a child to have a child. A child having a child causes poverty. Finishing high school is a choice. Not joining a gang is a choice. Not having a child until you have the maturity and the means to raise that child is a choice.

You ask how can a "fellow black American feel this way"? Quite a statement. You may disagree, but it doesn't make me less caring and compassionate than you are. I'm sure you truly consider yourself open-minded and tolerant. But based on your letter, tolerance ends -- especially with "fellow black Americans" -- if someone has an opposing point of view.

Larry

Wow.

My friend Jeff, sent me a message on Facebook tonight informing me that the New York Post quoted me in an article about American Idol. I must say, I found that a bit freaky. While it is incredible to to know that someone from the Post reads my blog (thank you), I must add that some of the other places that the article also appeared mistook me for an Entertainment Weekly blogger.

In fact, as most of my regulars know, I'm quite independent and only post about the entertainment industry as I see fit. Yes, I have - inconsistently - been writing about American Idol. But while I wrote about it more frequently in past seasons, I only began to broach it again a couple of weeks ago. But I will continue my weekly assessment of the show until a champion is chosen.

This has been an extraordinary week for this blog. Besides this NY Post thing, my Glee post was picked up by two of the most successful bloggers out there. Because of that, I broke my record for most hits in a day, two-days and week. I guess perhaps I should write less about politics and more about entertainment, huh?

Anyway, thanks for reading this past week and I hope you stick around.

American Idol Preview
Top Six

What should have been a boring show, considering that it was "inspirational night" turned out to have some very fine moments. So without further ado, let's get to this weeks list:

6. Aaron Kelley (last week #7) -- Aaron's unoriginality is going to get him tossed this week. He really has an exceptional voice for a 16-year-old and had he waited a year or two to mature, he may well have been a finalist down the road. R. Kelly's monster hit, "I Believe I Can Fly" has been beaten to death on Idol and really is a song most people get sick of after a few listens. Aaron has one thing going for him this week, which may keep his Idol hopes alive - at least for another week - and that's the fact that this week's theme is the music of Shania Twain. As the only country-style voice left, he has an opportunity to really shine. But unless he takes some chances, he won't get past the week.

5. Michael Lynche (last week #5) -- Big Mike proved last week that he deserved to stay, after performing Mariah Carey's "Hero." When it was first announced that he was doing this song, I cringed. Mariah is one of those artists that the judges often warn against using. But Mike pulled it off, as he changed it up a bit and made it sound believable. I still believe he has a limited fan base and I don't think he will make it through the top 4, at best.

4. Casey James (last week #4) -- Casey took two steps back this week, when he performed Fleetwood Mac's "Don't Stop." I admire that he went with a fast melody (and stayed away from the syrup past inspirational weeks have given us). But I really think he not only picked the wrong song, but did nothing to it in order to make it stand out. This was the complaint Kara and Simon had been making before he wowed everybody with "Jealous Guy." Another regression and he, too, could be facing the exit sign this week.

3. Siobhan Mangus (last week #2) -- Siobhan falls this week to number three, not because of anything she did, but because Lee Dewyze was amazing. Siobhan hits notes that mere mortals can only sit in wonder. However, I really believe she gets undue criticism from the judges, due to her walking to her own drumbeat. Personally, I love that about her and I vote for her on a weekly basis. I thought "When You Believe" was done exceptionally well. The judges comments that she is no "Mariah or Whitney" was uncalled for, when you consider that, for one thing, neither is Mike (who performed a Mariah song" and number two, she samg the song flawlessly.

2. Lee Dewyze (last week #3) -- Lee just keeps getting better and better. "The Boxer" was an inspired choice and although he flubbed the order of the verses (causing the meaning to be confusing), he sang it with tremendous passion. It does seem that Lee is still very unsure just how good, and popular, he is. I think one thing that's going to keep him as, at best, runner up, is his lack of confidence. But the dude can sing and can give Crystal a run for her money.

1. Crystal Bowersox (last week #3) -- Once again, Crystal had the best performance of the night. What made it even better was that she went on stage vulnerable, without a guitar or piano, and then proceeded to move the crowd with her heart-wrenching rendition of the Impressions "People Get Ready." She didn't even need to cry at the end to make it work. But that added emotion just cemented her front runner status (if she wasn't already).

Now I have a few issues I'd like to take up with the Idol powers that be. For one thing, PLEASE remove the sway-bots. Watching them move their arms - out of rhythm, must add - to every freaking song is really getting on my nerves.

Secondly, if you must make the finalists sing an opening number, do you think you can make them do it without lip-syncing? It's almost comical and as long as it continues, I won't watch the commercials that are advertised following them (I'll have changed the channel).

While I like the humor Ellen adds to the panel, it's obvious they only need three judges there. For one thing, I don't think Ellen has disagreed with anything Randy said and furthermore, it takes up time that could be given to the contestants to actually sing a full song. I have to admit, Kara has done a much better job critiquing this year. But she needs to either be a "sex kitten" or a "rocker." Trying both, week after week, is just not right.

And lastly, please ask Randy to stop booing Simon every time his name is mentioned. Really, grow up already. It's getting annoyingly old.

So that's my list for this week. If you have anything to add, or would like to tell me why I'm completely off my rocker, please leave me a comment.

No More "Glee" For Me

I think I'm about to stop watching one of my favorite shows.

I've been watching "Glee" every time it's been on, since it debuted last year. I find the show vastly entertaining and I think the characters are very believable. But that all changed in the past two weeks.

Last week, it was an obnoxious quip about Rachel, one of the lead characters. Rachel is a neurotic, Jewish girl. Of course, in Hollywood, what other kind of Jew is there? Anyway, because of her burning desire to be a star, not to mention her nerdiness (we can't have a "cool" Jew, now can we? And don't say Puck - he's only half-Jewish), she is pretty unpopular. This week, when of the "cool" cheerleaders called her "Pipi Longstocking," one of the other cheerleaders mocked her by saying, "yeah, an Israeli Pipi Longstocking."

Now what was the point here? And no, Rachel is not Israeli - not on the show, not in real life. The only reason for someone to make that distinction is to insult them, or at least to attempt to do so. It would be as if one of the black characters were called the "African Pipi Longstocking." No one would excuse that.

In last week's episode took it one step farther. Again regarding Rachel, one of the cheerleaders told her to "go back to Israel." And again I ask you, what would have been the outcry if they told the black girl to "go back to Africa?" Or the Asian girl to "go back to China?"

See my point?

Look, I recognize that these things are said in real high schools across America. But if a television show is going to put this in the dialogue, then they should use it to show how wrong and unacceptable this type of language is.

But I suppose that wouldn't fit the agenda of Glee's writers. After all, tonight's episode glorified Madonna as if she were a modern day saint - even going so far to simulate sex scenes between the supposedly underage cast. Granted, two of the three couples who were losing their virginity ended up backing out. Not out of any moral epiphany, mind you, but simply because one partner was too scared. The was nary a word spoken about the idea of abstaining, nor was anything said about the damage pre-marital sex (between two people who do not love and respect each other) does to one's self-esteem.

Look, I'm certainly no angel and I'm no prude, either. Sex is a wonderful thing, if shared between two loving people. But when not done in that situation, it can be ugly, abusive and in the case of being the first time, deeply regretful. Why couldn't the writers of a show geared towards the youngest, most vulnerable among us, show some responsibility and tell it like it is. Instead of making it appear to be "no big deal."

Hell, they allowed one young girl to become pregnant. Couldn't they have had her at least warn her friends of the perils? No, instead they made some fly-by comment that if you blinked, you missed it.

Of course, Glee is the show where last year, when this girl became pregnant and told her father, he was portrayed as a mean, intolerant ass who watches Glenn Beck (as if that were a bad thing). Tonight, the anti-conservative crack was about the students not having anyone to look up to. One of the teachers whined that all they had was "Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears and Ann Coulter."

Last I checked, Ann Coulter wasn't shaving her head, losing her children and running away from rehab. But I digress. Last week, it was a stupid quip from resident evil woman Sue Sylvester, saying that she can't believe how dumb her Cheerios (the cheerleading squad) were, by saying, "and I taught a young beauty queen from Wasilla, Alaska." Any guesses who that might be?

But I know Hollywood is grossly liberal and I do have a thick skin. But that doesn't mean I can accept Antisemitism to go unchallenged, either.

It's just a shame because I felt this show had so much promise.

And there was another liberal lie mentioned on tonight's show, as well. Quinn, the pregnant teenager, commented that "The fact is that women still earn 70 cents for every dollar for doing the same job. It starts in high school."

How many times have we heard this crap? Carrie Lukas has a great, honest rebuttal to this liberal myth, which you can read here (h/t Newsbusters for the link). But in a nutshell, it isn't as cut and dry as the liberals (and feminists) would have you believe. Think about it for a minute and read the her article. I think it will open your eyes.

So I think I'm done with Glee. Thanks Hollywood, you screwed up another great show.

This is brilliant sermon, delivered by Rabbi Mitchell Wohlberg, the spiritual leader Congregation Beth T'filoh, the largest Modern Orthodox congregation in America, located in Baltimore.

Why This Rabbi Didn't Vote For Obama and Why I made the Correct Decision (JWR)

I must begin by telling you that I was uncomfortable writing this sermon. I wondered whether it was too harsh or not harsh enough. I asked myself if I should be delivering it or if I should have delivered it two years ago. So I'll leave it to you to decide.

This week Israel celebrates the 62nd anniversary of its rebirth … the greatest event in modern Jewish history. You know by now how much Israel means to me. From my perspective, an Israel comes along once every 2000 years so it is to be cherished, protected and loved. In two weeks I will make my annual visit to that beautiful country, taking along my entire family, which means that for my oldest granddaughter — who is 7 years old — this will be her fourth visit but for my youngest granddaughter it will be her first. We are all excited for her! Israel is at the very heart of my family's existence.

It was with this feeling uppermost in my mind that I chose not to vote for Barack Obama for President. Although I felt he offered a measure of hope for our country, and although I felt the election of a black man as President of the United States would be one of the most positive and remarkable events to take place during my lifetime, and although I agreed with many parts of his domestic policies … it was his foreign policy views that concerned me and proved decisive. I have a much more hawkish view than he does on foreign policy. I have always considered myself what is called a "Jackson Democrat" and I was genuinely concerned about Obama's perspective on Israel. My feeling was based on something he had said and something he didn't say.

What he said was said in February of 2008 in a meeting with a hundred Cleveland Jewish leaders. Here are his words: "I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says: unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel, that you are anti-Israel and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel. If we cannot have an honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we're not going to make progress … because of the pressure that Israel is under, I think the U.S. pro-Israel community is sometimes a little more protective or concerned about opening up that conversation."

What he said was not so terrible and I have to tell you that I respected him for having said it. He was very honest about his feelings. What he was basically saying was that he does not agree with the policies of a Likud government and that American Jews should be more prepared to debate those policies. Now, Mr. Obama is entitled to his opinion. It is just not my opinion! Does that make him an anti-Semite? Absolutely not! We have got to stop that kind of foolish talk. There are many Israeli Jews who agree with what he said … there are many American Jews who agree with what he said! But I'm not one of them! And knowing that after years of Hezbollah and Hamas and suicide bombings and kidnappings and rocket attacks, a majority of Israeli voters don't agree with his perspective, it seemed obvious to me that if he were elected President, there would be a clash between his policies and Israel's policies. Sad to say, I was right.

But as events have unfolded, even sadder to say unfortunately I think I was right in my concern about what Mr. Obama had not said. For 20 years he went to a church whose minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, spoke in terms that were both critical of America and of Israel. And Mr. Obama had never raised his voice in protest. He not only should have, he could have! Let me tell you about a man who, in similar circumstances, did! His name is Abraham Foxman, and he is the head of the Anti-Defamation League. Mr. Foxman was a member of a prominent synagogue in Teaneck, New Jersey but he found himself in a similar position. And he left his synagogue.

In his words, "I tried to have my rabbi change his views. I went to fellow congregants to see if they could have an impact on him. Only at a point in time where that didn't happen I resigned." And he went on to say, "It was a wrenching decision, this was a synagogue where my son was Bar Mitzvahed, this was a synagogue where every happy event and every sad event I celebrated … this was my religious home." But he got up and left!

And when Rev. Wright's words came out into the open, I asked myself: why didn't Mr. Obama do the same? And it wasn't just a matter of Rev. Wright's words and it wasn't just a matter of Mr. Obama's close relationship with him … it was a matter of the whole church being enveloped with a "liberation theology" with it's Bulletin reprinting pro-Hamas articles. Wouldn't all this have had an effect on Mr. Obama's thinking? I asked myself.

James Tisch, the Manhattan billionaire and Chief Executive of Loews Corp. and long time activist in Jewish causes and philanthropies, thinks it did! In light of everything that has now been unfolding, Mr. Tisch recently said, "I think the President comes to this from Jeremiah Wright's church and there is no doubt in my mind that in Jeremiah Wright's church the Palestinians were portrayed as freedom fighters and not as terrorists." In light of Mr. Obama finding the time to visit Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey, but not Israel … in light of his refusing to take a picture with Prime Minister Netanyahu after their recent meeting … in light of so much emphasis being placed on the settlements … in light of the recent resurrection of Zbignew Brezinski … in light of new talk about an imposed settlement … in light of all this and more, I have to agree with Mr. Tisch.

THE OBAMA DIFFERENCE
I don't like what is happening, but that, in and of itself, is nothing new. There have always been conflicts between the United States and Israel. In 1956 the Eisenhower administration forced Israel to withdraw from captured territories despite Egypt's belligerency. In 1967 President Johnson warned Israel not to go to war and became the first American administration to condemn Israel's settlement activities. The Nixon administration tried to impose the Rogers Plan, forcing Israel back to the 1949 Armistice lines. Jimmy Carter … well, Jimmy Carter was, is and will always be Jimmy Carter. Ronald Regan was a friend but he was a friend who withheld weapons from Israel in punishment for its attack on Iraq's nuclear reactor. I could go on and on … there have always been conflicts; there have always been disagreements.

And one has to expect that! America is a global superpower … Israel is a country of seven million people. America's view is of the woods and Israel's is just one of the trees! So, disagreements are to be expected amongst friends. But the disagreements that are now taking place between America and Israel are different than the disagreements in the past. They are different on two levels.

First, for the first time that I can think of, Israel is being accused of being the one that is the hindrance to peace. That's never happened before! Despite all the disagreements between Israel and the United States, it was always understood that after all is said and done, it is the Arabs and Palestinians who have resisted making peace. The Ford and the first Bush administration refused to negotiate with the PLO. Bill Clinton clearly stated that it was the Palestinians fault that Camp David fell apart. Bush the Second refused to even talk to Yassir Arafat, saying he was an impediment to peace. Now? Now Mr. Obama goes to Cairo and says the first step toward making peace possible is freezing the Israeli settlements. He asks nothing tangible from the Palestinians. The Palestinians refuse to even negotiate, but its Israel's fault! And then when the clash erupts over the Jerusalem housing, Secretary of State Clinton and the others insist that Israel has to do certain things to show it is committed to making peace. Mr. Obama calls on Israel to take "bold steps" for peace but again, nothing tangible is asked from the Palestinians! Israel should show that it is committed to making peace? Israel should take "bold steps?"

What was Camp David, which the Palestinians rejected? What was the Gaza withdrawal, which the Palestinians responded to with rocket attacks? What were the Olmert concessions to Abbas, which only led to the Palestinians refusing to negotiate? What was Mr. Netanyahu's accepting a two-state solution and a partial freeze of settlements? And what was the removal of most of the check-points in the West Bank? And what were the "bold steps" the Palestinians took besides refusing to even indirectly negotiate, refusing to compromise on the right of return, refusing to accept a demilitarized state, refusing to accept Israel as a Jewish state, refusing to recognize any Jewish historic claims to Jerusalem … All they really seem to have agreed to do is to name more of their streets and squares after terrorists and suicide bombers. And Israel should show that it is committed to peace? Sen. John Kerry goes to Damascus and proclaims that Syria is committed to the peace process. Really? But with Israel there's a question?

I don't like what's happening. This has never happened before! And to make matters worse, Israel is not only now being blamed for hindering peace with the Palestinians, talk has started to boil to the surface that Israel is to be blamed for the death of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a libel … this is a blood libel! We've heard these accusations before, but they always came from the extreme fringes; from the Pat Buchanans and others of his ilk. Now the talk is becoming more mainstream. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, was quoted as saying that Israel's stubbornness makes the U.S. appear impotent. In a statement later denied, Vice President Biden was quoted as telling Prime Minister Netanyahu, "What you are doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan." U.S. Central Command General David Petraeus sends a statement to the Pentagon with a stark warning: "America's relationship with Israel is important but not as important as the lives of American soldiers."

A member of the administration is quoted as accusing Dennis Ross of having a dual loyalty. And we're told that it's all "misunderstood" or "misquoted" … it "doesn't mean anything." Well, I could read you quotes from the Palestinian Chronicle and from the Jordan Times and from the Middle East Online, Beirut's Daily Star and many other pro-Palestinian papers that have taken these words very seriously and are emboldened by them.

In fact, I don't have to quote from Arab sources, let me just read you the headline of a recent editorial in USA Today: "Our view on the Middle East: Israeli Settlement Push Hurts U.S. Interests, Peace Process" … with the editorial including these frightening words: " … if Americans whose own family member's lives are at risk every day in Iraq and Afghanistan come to believe that Israel's action needlessly increase that risk, support would be jeopardized." Those words are true, you know. You know why our country has supported Israel these last 62 years? It's not because of Republicans or Democrats, liberals or conservatives; it is because of the American people. Every survey shows an overwhelming majority of American people supporting Israel, even during oil embargos, and that support is there because there is something about the American people that are able to distinguish right from wrong, good from bad, terrorists from innocent civilians and democracy from tyranny. The only thing that could change the feelings of Americans would be if our country's service men and women were dying because of Israel. And a mood is emanating from Washington that could lead people to believe just that! What else is one to make of Mr. Obama's statement this week that the Middle East conflict was "costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure." What a horrible thing to say! The truth is, the Middle East conflict is affecting the blood and treasure of Israeli boys — not Americans. No American blood has been shed for Israel but plenty of Jewish blood has been! A real friend would not say this is Israel's fault.

TIME TO CONFRONT THE HARD, SAD TRUTH
I know that some of my words are going to bother some of you, but please understand if I didn't say them it would bother me even more! The fact of the matter is, this administration has from day one made improved relations with the Muslim world a primary goal, going as far as to ban the use of words like "Jihad" and "Islamic terrorism." It is unfortunate that to date, America's outreach of a friendly hand has not been reciprocated, which leads some to blame it all on Israel. If Israel would only give up what it is entitled to, the women of Al Qaeda would take off their burqas and join the Daughters of the American Revolution, the Taliban would sing Hava Negilah around the campfire, Hezbollah and Hamas would join Hadassah and the Shiites and Sunis in the Middle East would say: after 1400 years of killing each other, let's co-sponsor a Kiddush at Beth Tfiloh! It's just little Israel that is standing in the way of all this!

Well, let me tell you: it has been pointed out that the Jews have always been in the way! Look in the Bible … every time Babylonia or Syria wanted to invade Egypt, little Judea was in the middle. The Jews developed a unique set of rituals and beliefs; they couldn't offer sacrifices to the images of Roman emperors, they wouldn't work on the Sabbath and so to the Greeks and the Romans, they stood in the way of world domination. And then came another religion whose followers proclaimed that it was the fulfillment of the one the Jews practiced, but the Jews refused to go along. And so our people were portrayed as being the devil who were to be eternally dammed. And then came Islam … Mohammed was eager to win over the Jews. After all, he was a monotheist … why couldn't the Jews go along? And if they had, Mohammed would have a solid base from which to operate. But the Jews refused to go along. And so we were portrayed as being monkeys. In modern Europe, the Jews were in the way of middle-class Frenchmen and Germans who were seeking their jobs. The Communists found them in the way because Jews didn't fit into simple class categories. Eventually, Hitler came along and decided to once and for all eliminate this universal inconvenience. It didn't happen then and it's not going to happen now!

Meir Dagan is the head of Israel's Mossad. Under his directorship the Mossad, in recent years, has rebuilt its reputation for lethal and successful operations. What motivates Mr. Dagan may become obvious to a visitor to his office in Tel Aviv, where on the wall there is a picture of an old Jew standing on the edge of a trench … an SS officer is aiming his rifle at the old man's head. "This old Jew was my grandfather," Dagan tells visitors. The picture reflects his philosophy for Israel's survival. In his words, "We should be strong, use our brain and defend ourselves so that the Holocaust will never be repeated."

I don't fear that the Holocaust will be repeated. This is not 1938 all over again. But in some ways, it is 1948 all over again, when there were leaders in the upper most echelons of the American government including the Secretary of State, who urged the President not to recognize Israel, saying that such recognition would stand in the way of Arab friendship with our country. President Truman didn't listen to them. Instead, he listened to the words of his advisor, Clark Clifford, who told him, "In an area as unstable as the Middle East, where there is not now and never has been any tradition of democratic government, it is important for the long range security of our country — and indeed the world — that a nation committed to the democratic system be established there; one on which we can rely. The new Jewish state can be such a place." That's just what the new Jewish state has been for the past 62 years.

Sure, not every Israeli soldier acts like a saint, and not every Israeli policy is an act of genius. There is certainly room for criticism but that should not blind anyone to the fact that despite all the provocations and incitements, despite Palestinians using their children as human shields and their wives as suicide bombers, despite acts of barbarism and terrorism … despite all this there is no country on earth more desirous of peace, more willing to compromise for peace than the people of Israel. And this too I know: that as American Jews we should take Meir Dagan's words to heart: "We should be strong and use our brains …" And one thing more. We dare not despair. We dare not lose hope.

Barack Obama entitled his book "The Audacity of Hope" — a title he got from Rev. Wright. The truth of the matter is the history of the Jewish people could be entitled, "The Audacity of Hope," as expressed in Israel's national anthem, the Hatikvah, meaning "the hope."

Its author, Naphtali Herz Imber, once said, "Kings, Earls, Cardinals will all pass away … but I and Hatikvah will remain forever."

He was right! The hope remains forever …" to be a free people in our land, in the land of Zion and Jerusalem.

I've posted this before, but I'm adding a few and I think it's time to repost it. Don Surber linked something similar (and I admit I borrowed some from that post, which was done originally by Basilsblog) and it just made me realize it needs to be said again:

Why I'm going to vote Democrat in November

I am voting Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

I am voting Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

I am voting Democrat because I believe that Israel is the root cause of all the problems in the Middle East.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that Jews do not have the right to live in East Jerusalem, but that Arabs can live in Tel Aviv.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that destroying Clarence Thomas was fair and reasonable, but questioning Sonia Sotomayor on her own remarks is racist.

I'm voting Democrat because Hollywood actors who pretend for a living and little or no real education know more about history and the World than I do.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that Americans who have been burned by years purchasing poorly made cars will suddenly embrace GM cars now that they are being designed by bureaucrats.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe the words a President uses are more important that his actions.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe Capitalism no longer works and we should follow the European socialist model - even though European socialism is slowly being replaced by Islam.

I'm voting Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as Muslims aren't offended by it.

I am voting Democrat because I believe that nationalizing the health insurance industry, the same way Massachusetts did it, will not destroy our economy the way it's doing to Massachusetts.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe digging is the best way to get out of a hole like spending is the best way to get out of a recession.

I am voting Democrat because I believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

I am voting Democrat because I believe dissent is patriotic only if you are a liberal.

I am voting Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

I am voting Democrat because I believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe the best way to help our economy is to bankrupt our children and grandchildren.

I'm now voting Democrat because I believe it's arrogant to spread freedom and democracy.

I am voting Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.

I am voting Democrat because I am against capital punishment but support abortion on demand.

I am voting Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies through abortion so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

I am voting Democrat because I believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

I am voting Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the democrats see fit.

I am voting Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits.

I am voting Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

I am voting Democrat because I believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who've never been outside of Seattle do.

I am voting Democrat because I believe that believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't, because the right people haven't been in charge.

I am voting Democrat because I believe that believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried, is because the right people haven't been in charge.

I am voting Democrat because I believe that the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars.

I'm voting Democrat because the principles that made this nation the greatest in history are flawed and must be "fundamentally changed" for the greater good. Government is better than private. A guarantee is better than ambition.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe it is not fair that Keith Olbermann is less popular than Rush Limbaugh and I believe it is the governments job to fix the disparity.

I am voting Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my ass it's unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view.

If you have any you'd like to add, I'd love to hear them.

Finally, a left leaning reporter - from the Washington Post - dared to tread where Keith Olbermann and Chrissy Matthews fear to attempt.

He went to a Tea Party rally.

And you know what he discovered?

He found out that these folks aren't misogynist, homophobic, rabid racists who eat small children and want to kill the President (unlike what Matthews and Olberdouche say). Here is what Robert McCartney had to say about his foray into the wilds of the Tea Party movement (courtesy of Newbusters):

I went to the "tea party" rally at the Washington Monument on Thursday to check out just how reactionary and potentially violent the movement truly was.

Answer: Not very.

Based on what I saw and heard, tea party members are not seething, ready-to-explode racists, as some liberal commentators have caricatured them.

So did McCartney suddenly become a conservative? Not really but he came away from the experience with some very positive observations about the tea party people:

...I differ strenuously with the protesters on about 95 percent of the issues.

Nevertheless, on the whole, they struck me as passionate conservatives dedicated to working within the system rather than dangerous militia types or a revival of the Ku Klux Klan.

Although shrinking government is their primary goal, many conceded that the country should keep Medicare and even Social Security. None was clamoring for civil disobedience, much less armed revolt.

...The rally, estimated in the tens of thousands, also displayed a wacky, irreverent spirit that I found endearing. I can't help but smile when paunchy small-business owners aged 50 and older don three-cornered hats and hoist rattlesnake flags in exercising their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble.

McCartney should be congratulated on the open minded spirit with which he interviewed the participants in order to find out about their attitudes instead of attempting to be confrontational:

At the protest, I mostly ignored the speakers so I could probe what the participants wanted and how they viewed the world. I interviewed 19, picked at random, in three hours.

I found that I agreed heartily with the tea partiers on what is perhaps their single biggest concern: that America's swelling government debt seriously threatens our long-term prosperity.

As to those in the mainstream media, particularly MSNBC, McCartney has this comment:

Commentators on MSNBC and elsewhere have called the movement racist and likened it to the Klan.

...I didn't see evidence of racism at Thursday's rally. A sign read: "Not prejudiced. Not racist. Not violent. Not disenfranchised. Not silent anymore."

I can not impress enough upon you to open your own eyes and realize just how dangerous the words of these creeps at MSNBC, or even what former President Clinton said the other day, when he compared the Tea Party folks with Timothy McVeigh.

Unlike at many leftist rallies - see here and here - when conservatives protest, they do it honorably and lawfully. There are always unhinged kooks at any gathering. But at these Tea Party gatherings, these freaks are unwelcome, and often escorted out. At leftists rallies, they are just the accepted norm. While the Tea Party crowd will not stand for racism (again, regardless of what MSNBC wants you to believe), antisemitism or any other immoral agenda, the leftist rallies are filled with members of International A.N.S.W.E.R. (antisemitic), the Communist Party of America and a whole host of other fringe organizations.

In a recent survey taken by CNN, it was discovered that the Tea Party participants were very similar to the rest of the country, as far as demographics go. While MSNBC complains "where are the black guys?" - something that network should clear ask itself - the number of "people of color" at these rallies pretty much match up with the percentages of the country in general (again, unlike MSNBC).

That reminded me of something Chris Matthews said, following President Obama's State of the Union address:

"I forgot he was black for an hour."

Seriously, is every thing about race to these idiots? How in hell are we ever going to be a post-racial society, when so many on the left see only the color of one's skin? Isn't that what Martin Luther King, Jr. was all about?

Oh yeah, he was a Republican.

Listen, the Tea Party is not the boogeyman - regardless of what Matthews and anyone else whose up Obama's butt believe. In fact, their telling you to be afraid is simply their way of deflecting from the failures of their policies.

Meaning, as the economy continues to decline, as unemployment contnues to hover around 10% (which does not include the people who have given up looking for work), as the health care fiasco begins to be understood, as Iran gets closer to nukes (while the Obama people admit they have no plan), as Israel gets scapegoated and as amnesty for illegal aliens becomes a closer reality, the Obama people have no other recourse but to say that anyone who disagrees with him is a racist.

In that view, no one can ever disagree and that is exactly the way Statists/liberals work. One, because "feelings" override logic, they can not see what disasters their policies will bring long-term (think DDT), and two, they often make a huge mess, and when they decide it's unimportant any longer, they leave it for others to clean after.

Anyway, my ex-wife's parent's went to the Tea Party rally in Providence, Rhode Island, this past week and snapped these shots. If you look closely on the bottom poster, you can see my kids' pictures (along with their cousin's) on the poster. In the top poster, held by Renee's father, the picture on the poster he's holding is of himself, when he was in the Navy as a young man.

American Idol Preview
Top Seven

Okay, I know I've been ignoring American Idol for the past few weeks. After an outstanding week two weeks ago, the contestants seemed to take a step backwards during "Elvis week" this past Tuesday night. Although, in their defense, Elvis is hard to make current.

Two weeks ago, the judges utilized their one, and only, save of the season - keeping Michael Lynche, after a decent performance of "Eleanor Rigby." In my view, however, I really felt this was a mistake. While I agree that Big Mike is better than two or three of the remaining contestants, because it's highly unlikely he can win it all, using the save on him may come back to haunt the show. I still remember, back in Season 3, when Fantasia was in the bottom three with LaToya London and Jennifer Hudson (Hudson was eliminated that night, much to the shock and disgust of many, many viewers).

What happens if, for whatever reason, Crystal Bowersox finds herself facing elimination? While she is not my personal favorite, she is the one who seems most likely to win. If she is eliminated, will the show survive? Well, yeah it will. But it will be a huge black mark - reminiscent of Hudson's and Chris Daughtry's early, shocking eliminations.

This week, "Idol Gives Back" returns after a year hiatus. I suppose I will watch at least the contestants singing. I'm not excited about seeing the President (yet again), but I have no issue with his appearance. Still, the theme is going to be "inspirational songs." The show has already been the most boring of the recent years - so adding on to that will only be painful to watch.

On the other hand, I have seen tremendous improvement in some of the competitors. Tim Urban was an absolute joke, just a few weeks ago. But while he is close to the end of his line, he hasn't been half bad. Casey James had a true Idol moment a week ago, when he blew away John Lennon's "Jealous Guy." This put Casey back into the thick of things.

So here is my list of the top seven:

7. Aaron Kelley -- Aaron is a nice kids, with a nice voice. I actually think he could become a decent country music artist one day. But his inability/unwillingness to change up the arrangements will cause him to be eliminated within the next couple of weeks.

6. Tim Urban -- Tim has been getting better every week. But like Aaron, he is unable to change things up. He's less talented than Aaron, but has become more popular, due to the constant abuse he receives from the judges.

5. Michael Lynche -- Big Mike was very fortunate to be saved last week. However, even though he was not in the bottom three last week, he still only has a limited amount of support. While Mike has a nice voice, his personality comes across very strongly. In addition, he has made some arrogant comments that have alienated voters, as well.

4. Casey James -- At the beginning, I wondered whether or not Casey advanced to the top 12 because of his looks (and Kara's slobbering). After a few weeks, I agreed he deserved to be there, but was destined for a week 2 or 3 elimination. But then came his rendition of "Jealous Guy" and all that has changed. Can he keep up the momentum?

3. Lee Dewyze -- Lee is also getting better and better. Should he make it to the finals, which is a decent possibility, he is probably the only one who can defeat Crystal. He still needs to develop greater sense of self-belief. But he is this years' David Cook - and we all remember how well he did.

2. Siobhan Mangus -- I find Siobhan to be the most interesting contestant this year. She is certainly the most quirky. What I like best about her is her ability to creat Idol moments every time she steps on the stage. While she has not been as remarkable as she had been earlier, I found both her "Across the Universe" and "Suspicious Minds" to be pretty darn good. I don't think she can beat Crystal, although she is my personal favorite.

1. Crystal Bowersox -- Crystal is the clear front-runner. It's obvious the judges feel that way, as they have refrained from criticizing any aspect of her performances. Personally, I agree that she is the most seasoned. However, my problem with her is that she doesn't change up the arrangements. When she took on Janis Joplin's "Me and Bobby McGee," it sounded just like a radio performance by the original artist. While flawless, it was unoriginal.

I'll try to post American Idol reviews every Saturday night - at least until I develop a social life.

Dennis Prager is spot-on. While many of us wonder what happened to the innocence of our youthful days, Prager takes it a step further and answers that question:

The Left Squashes Life's Little Pleasures (JWR)

Reading the onslaught of angry denunciations of Burger King by mental health organizations and mainstream media reporters this past week reminded me of a characteristic of the Left not often commented on: a certain joylessness, even an antipathy to the little joys that contribute more than almost anything else to most people's ability to endure the difficulties of life.

These characteristics further reinforce the view that Leftism functions as a (secular) religion. Like medieval Christians who wore hair shirts and Puritans who thought dancing was sacrilegious, the Left, consciously or not, is uncomfortable with many of the joys — with notable exceptions such as sex and drugs — that people experience.

Needless to say, the Left always has noble explanations — usually, the protection of people's emotions and health — for opposing and even banning many joys of life. But the end result is fewer of these little joys that mean a great deal to people.

Burger King's ad was innocuous and innocent. It featured the company's royal mascot running through a building, knocking a person over and crashing through a glass window to deliver the new Burger King Steakhouse XT burger. Called "crazy" by those present, he was finally tackled by men in white coats. "The king's insane," the ad noted, for "offering so much beef for $3.99."

This has triggered a storm of criticism from activists (a term which, unless otherwise specified, means liberal or left).

Michael Fitzpatrick, executive director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, called the ad "blatantly offensive ... I was stunned. Absolutely stunned and appalled," he said. David Shern, president and chief executive of Mental Health America in Alexandria, Va., echoed this assessment. And reporters from the Associated Press to the Washington Post all agreed.

If this were isolated, it would be worth mentioning only in the context of wondering why people who run mental health — and most other activist — organizations seem to have little common sense. They should listen to William Gardner of Los Angeles, who wrote to me:

"I am a father of a 24 year old son with mental health issue. I am particularly tuned to protecting my son's self-image. My son and I have both seen the Burger King Ad that you have referred to. It did not occur to either of us that the Burger King Ad was offensive in any way. Why would I raise my son to be hyper-sensitive about his disability? My objective as a parent is to strengthen him. Making him hyper-sensitive would have the opposite effect."

But the Left has problems with much else as well: smoking (including cigars and pipes); virtually all kids games that can make a kid feel at all bad or get hurt; wood-burning fireplaces; cars; most jokes or any flirting in the workplace; incandescent light bulbs; cool homes in summer; and more.

Smoking

One of life's great little pleasures is tobacco. Just watch old war reportage to see the serenity and joy a cigarette brought to a wounded soldier. Though I do not smoke cigarettes, I have been smoking cigars and pipes since I was in college (my father still smokes cigars daily at age 91), and it would be difficult to overstate how much I enjoy both.

No one opposes educating the public about the dangers of cigarette smoking. Cigarette smoking shortens the lives of up to a third of smokers, often in terrible ways, and that is what public health organizations should be saying. But the battle against smoking and tobacco has become a religious crusade for anti-smoking zealots, who are almost invariably on the Left. If the Left hated Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro as much as it hates "Big Tobacco," the world would be a better place.

But because the Left hates the fact that people smoke (tobacco, not marijuana, which the Left defends) it uses totalitarian (I use that term with no exaggeration) tactics to eliminate it. Just as the Soviets removed Trotsky from old photos, anti-smoking zealots have forced the removal of cigarettes from old photos — from photos of FDR, from the famous Beatles photo — and from movies whenever possible. Torture and murder are ubiquitous in films, but smoking is all but banned — even cigars are now banned from James Bond films.

Smoking has been banned in entire cities, outdoors as well as in. In Pasadena, Calif., one cannot even smoke in a cigar store. That the Left has contempt for Prohibition reveals a lack of self-awareness that is quite remarkable.

Kids Games such as Tag, Dodgeball, Soccer, Touch Football, Monkey Bars

Virtually every game I played as a child during school recess is now banned because organizations such as the National Program for Playground Safety deem games in which kids are "running into each other" as too dangerous. Someone might get hurt.

Until a few years ago, just about every American boy, and many girls, played dodgeball. No more. This joy, too, has been eliminated from American life. "We consider it inappropriate to use children as human targets," said Mary Marks, physical education supervisor for Fairfax County, Va. And it may hurt the feelings of kids who are eliminated. For the same reason — potential hurt feelings of those eliminated — musical chairs is no longer played in some schools.

Some might argue that these bans are not because of Leftism but because of fear of lawsuits. But in light of how leftwing the trial bar is, that only reinforces my argument.

Pinups

For men working in, let us say, a car repair shop, there is not much by way of excitement or visual beauty. So the typical repair shop or factory had its pinup calendar — a calendar featuring a photo of a beautiful woman in a sexy pose, usually clad in no more than a bikini, sometimes less. The Left, in another totalitarian move, has banned pinups. The reasons: Sexism and possible Hostile Environment. How can a woman possibly work or bring her car into a repair shop where there is a picture of a scantily clad woman? The same people who clamor for a woman's right to walk in public with no top on (because men are allowed to) have banned photos of women with no top on.

Flirting at Work

A joy in life since the advent of men and women has been men flirting with or "chatting up" women. No more. Virtually anything related to a male reaction to a fellow employee who is female can be grounds for his losing his job and worse. What began as a campaign against bosses trading professional advances for sexual favors has degenerated into the elimination of essentially all the fun — and, yes, potential emotional hurt — of man-woman dialogue. At work, a man never knows what comment to what woman will trigger his being sent, a la Communist regimes, to a "re-education" program, being fined, having charges leveled against him, being humiliated, having a permanent mark on his employment record, and, of course, losing his job.

There is no question that some men went too far in their sexually charged comments to women. But as a rule, we have wildly overreacted. Women are not wimps. But the Left has inculcated a sense of victimhood into large numbers of women and thereby rendered them weak — just as it has, in ways too numerous to mention, emasculated men. I deplore crude comments. But in the America I grew up, it was legal to speak crudely, and either decent men would shut the crude man up or women would give the man a well-earned smack across the face.

Today, any hint at the sexual tension that naturally and joyfully exists between the two sexes has been banned. In the attempt to eliminate all pain caused by potentially inappropriate comments, the Left has done what it tries to do about all pain — ban actions that may lead to it. As a result, gone are the joys of the man-woman repartee in the workplace.

Cars

For most Americans, the car is not only a source of much pleasure, it is also rightly identified with individual liberty. But here, too, to the extent the Left is able to, it will tell you what kind of car you can drive and, if possible, get you out of your car and into mass transit.

The Home

To the Left, your home is not your castle; it is another place of too many joys that the Left would like to ban.

One joy I particularly identify with is the wood-burning fireplace. In California, activists on the Left, aka environmentalists, have banned them from being built in all new homes. Too many harmful emissions. Meanwhile, at the other end of the temperature spectrum, activists wish to determine how low you can set your air conditioner, lest you use more energy than the Left believes you should.

Do you like your present light bulbs? The Left has banned them in favor of CFLs that contain mercury. These new bulbs give a fair number of people headaches, emit less pleasant light, are initially much more expensive and, if broken, necessitate opening windows even in winter, and people and pets must leave the area. The EPA has issued a 16-point procedure to follow if a CFL bulbs breaks.

Indeed, if the Left had its way, the house would eventually become an anachronism as everyone gradually moves into space-saving, less polluting, less energy-wasting apartments.

Every poll has concluded that liberals are less happy than conservatives. There are many reasons for this, and given the importance of little joys to happiness, the Left's religious-like opposition to many of them is surely one of those reasons. The problem for the rest of us, however, is that, like most unhappy people, many folks on the Left don't like seeing anyone happier than they are.