Forget about politics. Here is an excellent piece by John Rosemond, a family psychologist and noted author of parenting books:

It's time for parents to get their heads out of the '60s (JWR)

I don't know about you, but I'm ready for the 1960s to be over and done with. That destructive decade has ruled American parenting for 40 years and pretty well ruined it in the process.

Before the '60s, parents sought child rearing advice from their elders.

Since then, parents have sought advice from a professional class — which is to say, people like me. Courtesy of Dr. Joyce Brothers (Spock had nothing to do with it, really) we so-called "experts" were able to convince the American parent of a truly absurd proposition: to wit, that a 35-year-old who possesses a graduate degree in child psychology, has been married for five years and has one child, age 2, knows more about children and how to raise them properly than an 85-year-old woman who never finished the eighth grade but who raised 10 kids into successful adulthoods. Like I said, absurd.

I was driving (creeping is more like it) down the 405 in Los Angeles the other day, getting really worked up about all this. Instead of road rage, which is justifiable in Los Angeles, I was having an attack of psychobabble rage. I started thinking about the really dumb things the babblers began telling parents in the 1960s. Take, for example, "children need to be able to freely express their feelings." In 1969, when Willie and I became parents, we believed that. It took three years for us to snap out of it, but by then our first child ruled our family with his habit of freely and loudly expressing his feelings whenever we failed to obey him.

It took a while, but I finally realized that children should not be allowed to freely express anything. The natural inclination of the child is anti-social, narcissistic. Children believe that what they want, they deserve to have, and because they deserve it, the ends justify the means. Tyrants believe the same thing. Therefore, children are tyrants by nature. Give a tyrant/child an inch, and the tyrant/ child will demand a mile.

Parents show their love for their neighbors by forcing their children to subdue their "inner bullies" and show respect for the needs of others. And yes, force is required. You cannot talk a child into giving up his delusions of grandeur and omnipotence. Once force has succeeded in creating a child who will give his parents his undivided attention, then and only then can his parents teach. Force is the horse that pulls the cart of teaching. And before the child abuse zealots go nuts, allow me to clarify: I ain't talking about spanking (although I am not completely eliminating the option, either). The most effective parenting force is applied calmly, but with steely resolve.

Just as a child should learn that certain behavior is inappropriate to certain situations, a child should learn that the expression of certain feelings is inappropriate to certain situations. Children should learn that it is just plain wrong to get angry when one loses a game, laugh when someone else trips or cry when one doesn't get one's way. Just as a child's behavior must be disciplined, so must a child's feelings.

So must a child's thinking. Children should learn that certain thoughts are correct and other thoughts are wrong. After all, wrong thinking leads almost inevitably to wrong behavior. On all three counts — behavior, feelings and thinking — parents need to be unequivocal. They need to make themselves perfectly clear what they expect and what they will not tolerate.

Yes, American parents need to wake up from the 1960s, take the flowers out of their hair, roll up their shirtsleeves and get back to the work of raising good citizens, defined simply as people who would rather serve than be served, people with more other-esteem than self-esteem.
Now there's some change I could really believe in.

This and That

General Stanley McChrystal used surprisingly poor judgment in a Rolling Stone magazine article, where he openly criticized and, at times, unabashedly mocked President Obama, Vice President Biden, and other senior officials. As the Commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and the U.S. Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A), McChrystal has been a no-nonsense and an American hero.

However, as much as what the General said may well have been true, the fact is that a general - no matter how many stars he has - is still a subordinate to the President of the United States. And as such, can not, nor should not, say something that will embarrass his superior.

The question is, will President Obama pull the trigger? I guess that depends on how badly he wants to keep the general quiet. More than any American today, General McChrystal has the ammunition to completely embarrass Obama on his handling of the war. How much worse will it be for Obama if relieves the general and the general decides to start talking?

Could make for some serious drama.

What I find most interesting about all of this is how the main stream media is attacking this story. For the most part, they are all in lockstep calling for McChystal's resignation. The pundits mostly agree that embarrassing the President is needed to restore honor to the White House. While I agree with this point, I'm curious why when the roles were a bit different, when George Bush was in office, the media openly supported criticism of the President by his generals.

Well, I know the answer to that. In today's media, a scandal isn't a scandal unless it's caused by a Republican.

And speaking of scandals, it's now been 62 days since the Deepwater Horizon explosion started spewing into the Gulf of Mexico, in what has become the worst environmental disaster in American history. And what did the media focus on this weekend? The fact that the CEO of BP spent Saturday with his son, watching a yacht race that he had entered.

Some people, apparently, had a problem with this. I didn't. For one thing, BP CEO Tony Heyward has passed on the responsibility of the containment to BP Executive Robert Dudley. So for all intents and purposes, there isn't much Heyward can do. And besides, considering how awful a job Heyward had done, do we really want him on this?

But the same people who are furious with Heyward for spending an afternoon with his son, seem to always be giving a pass to President Obama. Granted, as he said, he can't suck the spill up with a straw (very Presidential comments, by the way). However, Obama did say, repeatedly, that he "will not rest until this is fixed."

By judging from the President's schedule since he made this statement, it appears that he really hasn't rested. Unfortunately, he hasn't actually done anything about the spill, either. Doug Ross has an accurate timeline about how laser-sharped focus the President has been in response to this crisis. And this was done before he partied with Paul McCartney and played round after round after round of golf. His dereliction of duty has become so transparent that even MSNBC, including the sycophants Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, have openly criticised Obama.

Adding to the misery in the Gulf, Obama used his speech last week to not only suspend all drilling in the Gulf, which puts not only a lot of people out of work, but will cause a tremendous trickle down effect on gasoline prices (a federal judge just struck down the ban, but of course, the White House is appealing the verdict), but he also used that platform to push for cap and trade, which is the absolutely dumbest idea one can do in the throws of a bad recession.

As we are all aware, Rahm Emanuel has always advised Obama that he should never let a good crisis go to waste. It was the financial crisis that allowed Obama to seize banks and car companies. It's the rising cost of health care that allows his to nationalize medical care. Now, he is attempting to control every aspect of our energy independence through cap and trade. Aside from the fact that the idea of cap and trade was based on the fiction of Global Warming, the fact remains that cap and trade is disastrous for our economy and must not be allowed to pass.

The idea that Obama could mismanage this crisis so badly speaks volumes about his executive inexperience and extreme left ideology. No, I don't necessarily expect Obama to cap the well. But instead of sitting on ass, or golfing, or looking for more ways to transform this country into a third-world hell hole, I'd expect instead for him to start appointing capable, EXPERIENCED people to fix this mess. From my vantage point, it almost looks as if this crisis was exactly what he wanted in order to advance his ideological plans. The more he sat on it, the worse it became and the more power he could grab because of it.

This spill is destroying the region and it must be contained and cleared. That Obama turned down equipment that would have done just that after just three days, seems to be to be an impeachable offense. He has proven to be incapable, immature and a bully. If not before 2012, he must be sent to the ash heap of history, before he causes even worse damage.

Here is an interest article, written by Chuck Green, of the Denver Post/Aurora Sentinel - which is one of the more liberal papers in the country. Additionally, Mr. Green is a life long Democrat...so this is rather a stunning piece. This article was originally published on February 7, 2010 - two months prior to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, which has been a personal disaster for Obama in the polls. (H/T SodaHead, via Curmudgeonly & Skeptical)

It's All Bush's Fault

Barack Obama is setting a record-setting number of records during his first year in office.

Largest budget ever. Largest deficit ever. Largest number of broken promises ever. Most self-serving speeches ever. Largest number of agenda-setting failures ever. Fastest dive in popularity ever.

Wow. Talk about change.

Just one year ago, fresh from his inauguration celebrations, President Obama was flying high. After one of the nation’s most inspiring political campaigns, the election of America’s first black president had captured the hopes and dreams of millions. To his devout followers, it was inconceivable that a year later his administration would be gripped in self-imposed crisis.

Of course, they don’t see it as self imposed. It’s all George Bush’s fault.

George Bush, who doesn’t have a vote in Congress and who no longer occupies the White House, is to blame for it all.

He broke Obama’s promise to put all bills on the White House web site for five days before signing them.

He broke Obama’s promise to have the congressional health care negotiations broadcast live on C-SPAN.

He broke Obama’s promise to end earmarks.

He broke Obama’s promise to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent.

He broke Obama’s promise to close the detention center at Guantanamo in the first year.

He broke Obama’s promise to make peace with direct, no pre-condition talks with America’s most hate-filled enemies during his first year in office, ushering in a new era of global cooperation.

He broke Obama’s promise to end the hiring of former lobbyists into high White House jobs.

He broke Obama’s promise to end no-compete contracts with the government.

He broke Obama’s promise to disclose the names of all attendees at closed White House meetings.

He broke Obama’s promise for a new era of bipartisan cooperation in all matters.

He broke Obama’s promise to have chosen a home church to attend Sunday services with his family by Easter of last year.

Yes, it’s all George Bush’s fault. President Obama is nothing more than a puppet in the never-ending, failed Bush administration.

If only George Bush wasn’t still in charge, all of President Obama’s problems would be solved. His promises would have been kept, the economy would be back on track, Iran would have stopped its work on developing a nuclear bomb and would be negotiating a peace treaty with Israel, North Korea would have ended its tyrannical regime, and integrity would have been restored to the federal government.

Oh, and did I mention what it would be like if the Democrats, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, didn’t have the heavy yoke of George Bush around their necks. There would be no earmarks, no closed-door drafting of bills, no increase in deficit spending, no special-interest influence (unions), no vote buying (Nebraska, Louisiana).

If only George Bush wasn’t still in charge, we’d have real change by now.

All the broken promises, all the failed legislation and delay (health care reform, immigration reform) is not President Obama’s fault or the fault of the Democrat-controlled Congress. It’s all George Bush’s fault.

Take for example the decision of Eric Holder, the president’s attorney general, to hold terrorists’ trials in New York City. Or his decision to try the Christmas Day underpants bomber as a civilian.

Two disastrous decisions.

Certainly those were bad judgments based on poor advice from George Bush.

Need more proof?

You might recall that when Scott Brown won last month’s election to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts, capturing “the Ted Kennedy seat,” President Obama said that Brown’s victory was the result of the same voter anger that propelled Obama into office in 2008. People were still angry about George Bush and the policies of the past 10 years, and they wanted change.

Yes, according to the president, the voter rebellion in Massachusetts last month was George Bush’s fault.

Therefore, in retaliation, they elected a Republican to the Ted Kennedy seat, ending a half-century of domination by Democrats.

It is all George Bush’s fault.

Will the failed administration of George Bush ever end, and the time for hope and change ever arrive?

Will President Obama ever accept responsibility for something — anything?

I couldn't have said it better myself. And coming from an extreme-left Denver columnist just makes it that much more stinging. Once you lose the base, you've lost the country. The November elections look to be a true disaster for the Democrats and unless Obama learns the lessons President Clinton learned in 1994 (and there has been no indication that he will, or even can), the election of 2012 may very well look like 1980 all over again.

The question is, can we hold on that long?

Why Do I Do It?

Today, of course, is Father's Day. Since I'm the father to four (sometimes) wonderful children, I should have spent today surrounded by my kids and doing "Dad" things, like making a barbecue, having the kids wait on me hand and foot and you know, stuff like that. But that's not what my day was like this year.

Today started like most Sundays. I woke up pretty early, took an shower, and because my oldest son spent the night, woke him up so we could get haircuts (it was needed for both of us).

Before we came home again, one of my twins called and asked if I could come over because they wanted to give me something. Now understand, for all the years I was married, I don't ever recall any of my kids doing anything for Father's Day. As one of those cruel ironies of life, Mother's Day occurs during May, while kids are still in school. So each day, during that week, the teachers have them make art projects, or cards, for the kids to bring mom on Sunday.

Well, we fathers have no such luck. School ended a week ago and therefore, there weren't any teachers making my kids make ashtrays, or whatever it is they made when I was young.

Now, in my house, we always celebrated Mother's Day. But, whether it's because of my personality, or whatever, I was always lucky if one of the kids remembered me before I finally reminded them before bed. Don't laugh, they forgot my birthday two years in a row!

But this time, they actually bought me a gift. Well, their mother paid for it. But it was something the kids wanted me to have. It was so sweet that I was at a loss for words.

Anyway, that isn't why I'm writing today. What I did today was - after hanging out with the kids for a short time - was coach baseball.

I've always enjoyed playing ball. Even as a kid, when I was pretty awful, I still loved the competition. By high school, I became a pretty good basketball player, and a decent quarterback in football. But of course, I was just a legend in my own mind - especially once I seriously injured my back, when I was just 20.

But I still loved the games, even of I wasn't able to play anymore. I knew how to play and as they say, those who can, do. Those who can't, coach. I knew how to coach. Oh, I wasn't able to necessarily teach the kids any great moves, and I certainly am no genius. But one thing I've always known was how to interact and motivate kids. It was the reason I spent so many years as a youth adviser for NCSY (National Conference of Synagogue Youth).

My first coaching opportunity came in Houston, where I coached the kids from the Hebrew Academy, in basketball. We were not expected to be able to really compete, especially given that we were generally smaller than the other teams. But we only lost one game that season and somehow, someway, defeated that team in a rematch for the championship. It was at that moment that I realized I could do this.

While I spent many of the following years continuing my career as a youth director, I didn't get another opportunity to coach again until my own kids started growing up. Then, a few years ago, I came to the conclusion that my older son would greatly benefit from playing in a league. For those who know him, you know that he has Asperger's Syndrome (I don't say he suffers from it because in many ways, it's a blessing as well). But although he loves baseball, he was simply outmatched in this league. Nonetheless, the experience turned out to be very beneficial.

This team was pretty good. But what made them great was the way they not only accepted my son as a teammate, but they way they all reacted when he finally managed his first base hit. It was magical for him and for me. These boys were so good together that it was no surprise when they scored 5 runs in the bottom of the 8th (these games are only 7-inning contests and the championship game went to extra innings) to win it all. While my son did not get the game winning hit, the boy who did was also in the same boat as my son. He was not a very good hitter, but was treated so well by the team that even when he got out, he knew no one was making fun of him.

Well, we won that season. But the season took a lot out of me. I was still recovering from my heart transplant and would often need a day or two just to get back on my feet afterward. But my son asked me to coach again the next year. This time, it was softball and it seemed that this group of kids were not all that interested in playing. I was lucky to be able to field enough players to play each week, and a couple of times, we had to forfeit because we didn't have enough players. It was a brutal season and I felt afterward that it took too much out of me.

But this year, my youngest son decided he wanted to play and he asked me if I would coach his team. How could I refuse? This time, I was in far better health and far better prepared for a season.

When I met my players, I knew I had something special here. The only thing that upset (and disappointed) me was that for some reason, there weren't many parents coming to the games. While that was a concern, I used it as a motivator to show the boys that they only had each other. However, the first game was a disaster, as we fell behind 8-0. But my boys proved to me that they had no quit in them and although they lost, they ended up coming very close - losing just 8-7.

The next week game us our first win and our only tie - which would have been a win had the umpire not blown a call on the last batter. Still, at 1-1-1, I started to see my boys start to play as a team. From there, we reeled off 6 straight wins - some by very large margins. What I also noticed, which was similar to my last championship team, was how the better players treated the less talented ones.

My son started the season afraid to swing a bat. However, he was pretty good in the field, so I kept him at second base. His talent really showed through in the one game he missed. His replacements made four errors at his position that one day. But the team continued to help him learn to hit and by the end if the season, he became one of the better hitters on the team. I was very proud of him, but I was even more impressed with his teammates.

In the first playoff, we were missing one of our best players (and my second pitcher). It showed when we were at bat. But the two boys who pitched were unhitable and we pulled it out 1-0 in 9 innings. Of course, I figured that with that player back in lineup, our chances were excellent that we could win it all.

But sometimes, things don't always work out the way we expect. Today's game started okay, but though the first two innings, we left 4 players on base. After two, the score was tied 0-0. Because of the rules of this league, a pitcher can only pitch 4 innings. So, to keep my best picture available to close the game, I went with my second best pitcher to get us through the middle innings.

That was when things went downhill, and fast. The pitcher has a lot of power and often strikes. But today, the other hitters were just teeing off of him. By the time I had to relace him, the score was already 4-0 them.

The next few innings were hard to watch. We didn't let up any more runs, but it seemed we left at least two men on every inning, but just couldn't score. In the 7th, all the wheels came off and we let up another 5 runs. We did manage, once again, to load the bases in the bottom of the 7th, but once again, they were able to shut us down. We lost 9-0.

And yet, as horrible as I felt for my boys, I still couldn't get over how incredible the season went. Winning isn't everything and tomorrow, these kids will no longer care that they came up a game short. As summer camp, or vacation trips become the focus of their lives, I know that the experience this kids had, coming together as they did, will be a source of pride wherever they go.

I know it is for me.

So now I've been asked to coach in the summer league and I am considering it. Both of my twin boys may play and it would be wonderful if they could have the same incredible experience one of them just had.

So maybe this wasn't the standard Father's Day. And it didn't end with us winning the big trophy. Yet, I wouldn't have traded this Father's Day with anyone. I hope they are all as wonderful as this one was.

Here's an excellent article from James Lewis, at the American Thinker:

Obama and the Rising Mob Against Israel

The Middle East is now teetering on the brink of war because a vast international mob has been loosed, with the tacit approval of Barack Hussein Obama. That is the real meaning of the Gaza martyrdom stunt of May 31, 2010. That purposeful provocation is not past. The Gaza suicide operation is still being used all over the Middle East and Europe to whip up hatred and violence.

As Mark Steyn just reported from a dingy cafe in Morocco,

I can just about make out the plasma TV up in the corner on which Jimmy Carter, dubbed into Arabic, is denouncing Israel. Al Jazeera doesn't so much cover the Zionist Entity as feast on it, hour after hour, without end. So here, at the western frontier of the Muslim world ... the only news that matters is from a tiny strip of land barely wider at its narrowest point than a rural Canadian township way down the other end of the Mediterranean. ... (there is) saturation coverage of the "Massacre In The Med" (as the front page headline in Britain's Daily Mirror put it)."

Iran, Lebanon, and Islamist Turkey have just announced new flotillas to break the Gaza blockade. If they succeed, it will not stop with Gaza. The conquest of Jerusalem and rest of Israel is the target. That is why Ahmadinejad has trained all his life in the "Al-Quds" (Jerusalem) Brigade of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, the shock suicide brigade for reconquering Jerusalem. That is why the Hamas flag shows a green Islamic Jerusalem. It is why Kofi Annan at the U.N. proudly posed in front of a map of the Middle East with Israel erased.

Mob psychology has now been loosed upon the world again -- in the European media, the U.N., and the Middle East, all of them against the common scapegoat of Israel.

cartoon by Ronny Gordon

Lynch mobs have a psychology. They need agitators to whip up popular rage against their victims -- like the "community organizers" in Chicago, who once upon a time used to proudly call themselves communist "agitators." But agitators need followers, who do the actual work of running riot, killing, raping, and burning their helpless scapegoats in their homes and businesses. Think ACORN and the Black Panthers.

Finally, mobs need enablers, the authority figures -- the cops, military, and politicos who give the signal that it's now okay to run riot and kill the helpless victims of the moment. Political authorities usually try to control incipient mobs, because their power depends on keeping order. But in Russia and the Dixiecrat South, politicians and cops commonly withdrew their protection at critical moments and signaled the mobs when it was okay to run riot against victim groups like the Jews or the blacks. It happens all over the world, and the race, ethnicity, religion, or wealth of the victims makes no difference. A group label is enough.

Barack Hussein Obama is now playing the biggest role in the mob psychology of the Middle East. Why? Because he is the authority figure who has given the signal that it's okay to attack Israel. That is why Islamist Turkey, Lebanon, and Iran just announced that they are sending new flotillas to challenge Israel's small coastal navy. Intentionally or not, Obama has given the green light for Israel-haters to attack. In fact, this appears to be his strategy to put pressure on Israel to appease the Arabs, Iranians, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Fatah, the unappeasable mobs that want only to kill Israel.

That is how Obama's Cairo speech was interpreted by the agitators and mobs of the Middle East. It is how his middle name was interpreted, and how his reported remark to the Egyptian Foreign Minister that "I am a Muslim" is perceived. If Obama really is a Muslim, then he must follow the Quran. Turkish PM Erdogan has openly said that "a Muslim cannot commit genocide" -- because the Quran explicitly demands genocide against infidels who do not surrender to Islam. That is why the Turkish suiciders on the cruise ship Mavi Marmara screamed "Khaibar! Khaibar!" while attacking Jewish commandos rappelling down one by one with paintball guns. Khaibar is the name of a Quranic genocide committed by Mohammed against the Jews. It's like Neo-Nazis screaming "Auschwitz! Auschwitz!"

For almost a century, the United States has been the cop on the world beat, as the British Empire declined and crumbled. The U.S. was the great, civilized power that supported freedom of trade; resistance against the Kaiser, Hitler, and Stalin; relative peace in the third world; and the protection of post-World War Two stability, ranging from Japan and South Korea to Israel and Berlin. Europe today would not exist were it not for American protection; it would be a Soviet colony. India and Pakistan might be in a hot war. China might be attacking Japan to retaliate against the horrors of World War Two, which are constantly repeated in the Chinese media. Ancient hatreds exist all over the world, ready to explode when the cop on the beat gets drunk or just resigns.

The United States has preserved the balance of power and kept it on the side of civilization against the mob. All the feeble regimes in the third world depend upon us to come to their aid against their own mobs and agitators. In fact, those regimes are just the mob agitators who won the last round.

We are the cop on the beat that keeps the world from bloody anarchy. When the president of the United States signals that it's okay to run riot against the scapegoat of the moment, all the tottering regimes know they have to give in to their domestic mob agitators. That's what Mark Steyn was watching on Al Jazeera TV in Algiers.

This is what William Butler Yeats saw during the rise of the Nazis, when he wrote his poem "The Second Coming":

TURNING and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

Mob psychology has now been loosed upon the world again. Only an assertive superpower can stop them, and that is the United States. If Obama fails to understand that, the Gulf, Israel, and perhaps the Indian subcontinent will explode.

Being De-Friended

When I began recovering from my transplant, I decided to make it my goal to reconnect with as many old friends as possible. As I wrote in my transplant story, I was having a very difficult time trying to understand how my life turned out the way it had. Without going into detail here (you can read the story if you're that interested), I felt that the key to my future was by understanding my past.

In some respects, I was correct. I managed, over the next 8 years, to reconnect with everyone I set out to find. Some found me, and others I had to track down. There are a couple of people I decided against finding because I do believe some things are best left in the past.

What I discovered, though, is how precious every relationship was. Even though I don't communicate with everyone on a regular basis, I have kept up with them all - either by email or Facebook.

So, as I am now almost 8 years post-transplant, I find I have become Facebook friends with most of them. Add to my friend list my brothers, sister, nephews, nieces, aunts and uncles, children and other relatives; I find that I have more Facebook friends than I ever dreamed I'd have. Some of these friends are from my childhood, some from when I worked for NCSY (in a number of places) and yet others are people I've become acquainted with over the past 8 years. Each one is a different story and each one means so much to me.

So it is with sadness that I discover someone unfriending me. Granted, not everyone wants to be my friend, but once someone does, I like to believe they will be a friend for life. I have learned that life is so very short and we are only able to succeed upon the shoulders of those who support us.

This friend who unfriended me was not a lifelong friend from my youth, but someone I only met about three years ago. The details of how we met is not important, neither is the name. Since we met, we developed a nice connection over many miles. There were some very nice qualities about this person and I enjoyed the friendship.

But then, just a couple of days ago, this friend sent me a message, asking me to "like" (which is a Facebook way pf supporting a particular person or thing) something I felt was in poor taste. The thing was in support of removing someone from a particular show for their conservative views. While I may not watch the show for many reasons - one, because the others on the show are not only very liberal, but are quite insane - I don't believe having a different point of view is reason to fire someone from their job.

I worked for the past two years with a boss who was an extreme lefty. While I disagreed with many of his points of view, I never questioned his right to express them. On the other hand, he often would lambaste and embarrass me because I hold conservative opinions. Did it bother me that he was so condescending and intolerant? Absolutely. But because he was my boss, I mostly held my tongue. However, there were times he crossed the line and I argued with him.

This friend, however, never gave me that chance. This friend's first reaction to my comment was to de-friend me. Now, it should be pointed out that the comment I made to this person was neither mean-spirited, nor antagonistic in any way. I simply wrote to this person that I disagreed with the idea because I felt expressing a different point of view is important not only for that show, but for this country entirely.

See, I still remember when Hillary Clinton said that to disagree was patriotic. And yet, since Obama has become President, it seems any opinion that isn't in lock-step with the left is either hate speech, or racist. I do not begrudge anyone from having liberal views - in fact, a number of my Facebook friends are quite liberal. However, that does not mean I will just sit back and shut up whenever I am confronted with someone, or thing, I disagree with.

Earlier today, I posted an article written by Harris Senturia, a member of the Cleveland Chapter of the National Jewish Democratic Council. The article, titled "President a friend of Israel, reflects Jewish values," explained why he believes Barack Obama is, and has been, good for the Jews. Upon reading it, I came to the conclusion that Mr. Senturia is either very foolish, or else he really does not understand what being good for the Jews really entails. He uses the idea that Obama - and I can only assume by extension, the Democrat Party - shares the same core values as the Jewish people.

And what, exactly, are those same core values? Well, for one, he claims that President Obama was steadfast in his support of Israel's raid on the Mavi Marmara. But that is so far from the truth, it makes my head hurt. Aside from certain Obama "friends" being directly involved in the launching of this ship, Obama allowed the condemnation of Israel to proceed in the United Nations.

In addition, Obama's treatment of the State of Israel, since he took office, is nothing short of shameful and dangerous. He has surrounded himself with far too many anti-Semites - Reverend Wright, Samantha Powers, Joseph Cirincione, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Susan Rice, and Robert Malley, not to forget Rashad Khalidi to name another. Furthermore, his treatment of Prime Minister Netanyahu, along with his backtracking on his promise at the AIPAC meeting that "Jerusalem shall remain undivided" AND his slobbering over the Islamic world (while disgustingly insulting our allies) just adds to the proof that Barack Obama is no friend to the Jewish people.

When you look at the people who come out in support of Israel on a daily basis, what you see is that the overwhelming majority of them are conservatives. The liberal left has long ago aligned themselves with the enemies of Israel and the Jewish people. Yes, I know an exception is Pat Buchanan. But he is an exception rather than the rule. In general, if you want to read blog, or watch a talk show in support of the State of Israel, you need to read (and watch) conservative, right wing websites.

Are there liberals who support the State of Israel? Of course there are. But what Mr. Senturia wrote was not supportive of Israel. In fact, it was quite damaging because it gives Obama's treatment of Israel a cover to continue his policies, which are absolutely feckless and dangerous.

In addition to his claim that Obama stands with Israel, he also added "at home, Barack Obama is one of the greatest champions against intolerance and exclusion that this country has ever seen." Is he serious???

Since taking office, Obama has been the most divisive President in recent history. From his calling out the Cambridge Police Department, to his claim that the Arizona border laws are racist (assuming that, unlike his Attorney General and Homeland Security Secretary, he actually read the bill), he has shown a remarkable ability to divide this country even more than his predecessor.

Unfortunately, people like Harris Senturia are so blind by their ideology that they can not fathom that someone like Obama holds different values than he does. Of course, some will say that because I am a right-wing conservative, I am also blinded by ideology. But I do not see it that way. I do look and listen to the other side. But again, I will not just sit idly by while someone says, or writes something I vehemently disagree with.

Of course, one Facebook friend said I was "so angry" and that I "let someone else offer an opinion, even if you disagree"

But I didn't stop that man from stating his opinion and I'm never angry. However, I am frustrated by the condescending tone of someone telling me I'm somehow not letting anyone else have an opinion. What I have found from many of my liberal Facebook friends (and I've heard this quite a bit outside of Facebook), is this overwhelming feeling that because I do not tow the liberal line, I have to be careful what I say.

My ex-friend - the one who de-friended me - exemplified this attitude. It is condescending, it is rude and it just shows me who the intolerant ones are. Nowhere did I say Harris Senturia had no right to state his opinion. NOWHERE.

I simply stated I disagreed with him and felt he was ignorant and a self-hating Jew. Because anyone who could not only believe Obama has been good to the Jews (and shares the same values) and then write about it for all the world to see, can not truly love the Jewish people, or the State of Israel. What he is suggesting is for us to simply accept Obama's "purity" and allow him to continue to destroy this country's relationship with Israel.

Of course, this attitude is what allowed so many people to just walk into the ovens in Auschwitz. It is foolish and it is dangerous. And telling me (or anyone else on the right) to shut up and sit down is arrogant and disgusting, as well. If you don't agree with my views, that's your prerogative. You have a right to your opinions. But do not try to shame me for my having my own.

That just makes you look stupid.

Excellent, informative post by William Jacobson:

Should These Jews Also Go Back to Poland and Germany?

Helen Thomas' comments that Jews in Israel should go back to Poland and Germany perpetuated the falsehood that Israel is a European implant, which fits nicely into the narrative of the Islamist-Leftist anti-Israel coalition.

In fact, as I documented before, there was an exchange of populations at the time of and after Israel's independence, with roughly equal numbers of Jews fleeing Muslim lands to Israel as there were non-Jews fleeing what now is Israel and the West Bank.

In following up on Thomas' comments, I came upon the story of the expulsion of Jews from Iraq, which started with the Farhoud (sometimes called "Krystallnacht in Baghdad").

I never heard of the Farhud specifically, although I was aware at a more general level of the attacks on Jews in Muslim lands prior to and after the creation of the State of Israel. This post was illuminating:

Few people in Iraq know what happened in Baghdad exactly 69 years ago.

But on June 1-2, 1941, something previously unthinkable in the city occurred. Mobs attacked the capital's prosperous and influential Jewish community, killing more than 100 people and looting homes.

By the time the orgy of murder and pillaging was done, the Jewish community was so shaken that it would never recover. Within 10 years, the vast majority would leave the country, leaving behind just the handful of people who tend the capital's empty synagogue today.

The two days of terror are known in Iraq as the Farhud, the Arabic word for pillaging or looting an enemy. Yet most Iraqis know very little about the event because Iraq's history books rarely speak of them. Those writers who do mention those days simply explain the violence as the result of the Iraqi Jewish community's "Zionist activities," ithout detailing more.

But people who survived the attacks and remember the events tell another story -- like Layer Abudia, who now lives in Israel, who was a child at the time of the pogrom.

An interesting discussion of the forced expulsion of the Iraqi Jewish community, much of which ended up in Israel, is in this clip of Iraqi Author Dr. Rashid Al-Khayounfrom which appeared on Al-Arabiya TV (transcript here). A key player in the expulsion of the Jews of Iraq to British Palestine (and eventually Israel) was the Nazi-supporting Grand Mufti of Jerusalem:

Interviewer: But many of the Jews moved to Israel.

Dr. Rashid Al-Khayoun: They were coerced to move.

Interviewer: Who forced them?

Dr. Rashid Al-Khayoun: The wave of pan-Arab nationalism within Iraq.

Interviewer: So they thought that Israel would be better for them than Iraq?

Dr. Rashid Al-Khayoun: They did not go [straight] to Israel. First, they went to European countries, to Iran... They tried to find an interim region from where they could later return to Iraq. You shouldn't be surprised if I told you that the first to study [the possibility] of expelling the Jews from Iraq was the so-called Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin Al-Husseini.

Interviewer: What, Amin Al-Husseini banished the Jews of Iraq to Palestine?

Dr. Rashid Al-Khayoun: Yes, Amin Al-Husseini played a significant role, along with German Nazism, in dragging the Jews out of Iraq.

The history of the Farhoud and the expulsion of the Iraqi Jewish community contradicts the picture often portrayed in Western media of Jews being an accepted minority in Arab states.

Are the Iraqi Jews and their descendants in Israel among the Jews who should go back to where they came from?

Somehow, I think Helen Thomas and her supporters would say "yes," which tells you everything you need to know.

I recently came across a blog on the TownHall.com website by the name of ApolloSpeaks. I really know very little about the blogger, but I was duly impressed with his post refuting ignorant HuffPo blogger, Hal Donahue (I won't like to that anti-Semite). I thought you might enjoy it as well:

APOLLO VS HAL DONAHUE: ON THE PALESTINIAN-ISRAELI CONFLICT

Huffington Post blogger Hal Donahue commenting on Jonah Goldberg's TH piece: "Israel's Gaza Blockade: It Works" wrote yesterday that:

"Because of stupidly over generations Israel's actions have created a [Palestinian] people. "

To which I replied:

"The stupidity of Israel, Hal? Or the medieval mindlessness and lunacy of Islamo-Arab racism and intolerant religious supremacy which sees Israel's existence as a painful humiliation and refutation of Islamic truths?"

To which Donahue replied:

"Both actually. Until they get tired of destroying each other."

To which I replied:

Donahue says that the problem driving the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is that both sides are [trying] to destroy each other. On the contrary, it's the Palestinians and Arabs who are violently intolerant and opposed to Israel's existence on racial, cultural and religious grounds-on primitive values drawn from the Dark Ages. If Israelis were intent on destroying all Palestinians then, starting with one million Israeli Arabs, they would have done so by now.

Democratic, peaceloving, progressive Israel wants a resolution to the conflict. Regressive, primitive, war loving Palestinians want victory. Israelis understandably have given up trying to make peace with the Palestinians and want to disengage from them leaving them to their savagery and evil-the only logical course for Israel given their ruinous intransigence.

To equate the two as moral equals, as uncritical, confused, politically correct multiculturalists like Donahue do, has nothing to do with the nature and reality of the conflict-for between good and evil there is no equality. Unfortunately for the peace and stability of the Middle East [whatever little there is] we have a completely clueless fool in the White House who shares Donahue's radical views and wants to return to the failed peace process of the past [when Clinton was backstabbed by Arafat] dying to give insanity another chance.

To which Donahue replied:

"Israel is not a peaceloving country - see its history."

To which I replied:

The story of Israel you say is not the history of a peaceloving democratic people? Which history are you referring to I wonder? The real history of a nation restored to life after 2000 years under siege from its birth because it's a modern, liberal, progressive, non-Moslem state? Because it rejects the Koran as its constitution and the prophet Mohammed as it's religious and political guide (which you do as well)? A nation that gave up 90% of the lands it captured from an aggressive nation in a defensive war and granted autonomy to the Palestinians during a foolish peace process? Or the revisionist, politically correct, appeaser's history that fits Arab lies, propaganda and stereotypes of a Western imperial-colonial-capitalist-land grabbing power? Which history do you mean, Hal?

Donahue never replied to this but instead answered a comment I made to another poster named Mark who equated Israel's blockade of Gaza with "Nazis confiscating Jewish property and killing its owners."

To this I replied:

Your equating of Israel's blockade of Gaza-supported in Israel because of its success in saving Jewish lives and property-with "Nazis confiscating Jewish property and killing its owners," is morally outrageous.

The Nazis had both the means and will to annihilate every Jew in Europe and beyond; while Israel has the means to eradicate the Palestinians but not the will. On the other hand, the Palestinians have the will to destroy every Israeli Jew but not the means-which they pray for daily in their mosques and schools. Who is more Nazi-like, Mark? Who are the real genocidal killers? The Israelis or Palestinians?

As for world opinion opposing the blockade Israel obeys only one law against which all others are relatively meaningless. One law summed up in two bold words: NEVER AGAIN! If the world disapproves of the Jew-saving blockade of Gaza let them come with warships to break it.

Mark never responded to this but Donahue did with the following lame post:

"The world just may send warships."

Send warships to confront nuclear armed Israel when the world is doing little to stop terrorist Iran from building the bomb? And doing nothing to punish North Korea for its deadly sinking of a South Korean ship? Fat chance!

But nowhere does Donahue show the pathetic extent of his mental confusion on the Arab-Israeli Conflict than in the following comment he made to a poster named Summers where he expresses his admiration for Islamo-Nazi Hezbollah:

"Hezbollah's strategy has been brilliant" says Donahue. "They built schools, hospitals and financial institutions and they are well run, fair and admired. There is little extremism. They even had significant Christian support in the last election. This is my point. To survive Israel must change and adapt."

To which I replied:

It's deja vu all over again. If we were back in the 1930s Hal Donahue would be one of the many liberal leftist admirers of Hitler and Mussolini. Why?

Hitler and Mussolini both built schools, hospitals, financial institutions, highways, sports arenas and trains running on time for their people. Both received wide Christian support. And, as Jeff Goldberg informs us in his brilliant book "Liberal Fascism," Mussolini in the late 1920s and early 30s, was the most popular and revered political leader on earth-like Hezbollah leader Nazzralla is today in the Middle East.

"Israel" says Donahue "must change and adapt" to this new wonderful reality in its neighborhood. Must "change and adapt" to an Islamo-Nazi leader and movement destined to share the bitter fate of Hitler, Mussolini and European Fascism.

Hal Donhahue is symptomatic of the intellectual and moral derangement of the political Left led by the ill fated ignoramus in the White House whose presidency began with Ted Kennedy's collapse from a left-sided brain tumor; and resembles with each passing day the growing disaster in the Gulf.

Israel Doesn't Need Justification

A friend of mine wrote me recently and wanted to know who to believe in the Israel-Arab crisis. Now, that normally isn't a surprising question. However, this friend is Jewish and went to a Jewish high school. I'm not criticizing her question, not at all. I'm actually very happy she turned to me for the answers. But it really brought home the enormous talk of fighting the Arab lies that have now seeped into American culture.

How to believe?

Unfortunately, when you tell a lie often enough, it becomes everyone's truth. This is happening today. In today's world, it is acceptable to call Israel an "apartheid" state, even though when one looks at the facts on the ground, it's not possible. It's become acceptable to call Israel a "mistake", as not only Andrew Sullivan has suggested, but longtime friend of Israel, columnist Richard Cohen has.

But history tells us a different story.

Israel Matzav has written a wonderful piece that explains the true history of the land that too many call "stolen:"

The term "Palestina" was invented by the Roman emperor Hadrian. The Romans wanted to rename Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel) after the Philistines, the longtime enemy of the Jews. Hadrian believed that by renaming the Jewish homeland after the Jews' archenemy, he would be able to forever break the bond between the Land of Israel and the Jewish people.

But even the name of the Philistines, from which the term "Palestine" was adopted, is completely alien to the Land of Israel.

The name Philistines in Hebrew is plishtim, which comes from the Hebrew verb polshim (foreign invaders).

Arabs only came to the Land of Israel in large numbers after the Jews returned in the 20th century and started to rebuild the nation, thereby creating economic and employment opportunities for Arab immigrants.

Prior to 1870, when Jews started to return to the Holy Land in large numbers, there were fewer than 100,000 Arabs living in what is today the State of Israel - including Yesha (the Hebrew acronym for Judea, Samaria and the Gaza District).

This small number of nomadic, tribal Arabs who lived in the Holy Land before the modern Jewish return never considered themselves to be a separate people or nation.

The Arabs who lived in the Land of Israel were not "Palestinians" but Arabs - part of a huge Arab people with 22 very large independent nations that control one-ninth of the land mass on the planet Earth.

I urge anyone who wants to know the truth about the land to read the entire piece.

Real history says that there has been a strong Jewish presence in that area since the days of Abraham. The two Jewish Temples were built there and THE ONLY REASON the Jews ever left was because they were exiled by the Romans in 70 AD.

The other great lie is what happened to the Arabs who lived there prior to 1948? My friend was told that the Jews sent them packing upon Israel's independence. Again, this is the complete opposite of the truth.

The people who were exiled when Israel became a modern nation were the Jews of the Arabs countries. Thousands and thousands of Jews had lived in the Middle East - in what became Iraq, Yemen, Syria and many other countries, some families for hundreds of years - until they were forced out by the Muslim governments upon Israel's creation.

The Arabs of Palestine, however, were welcomed to become citizens of the new, democratic state of Israel. However, here is what Palestinian nationalist Aref el-Aref explained in his history of the war for Israel's independence:

The Arabs thought they would win in less than the twinkling of an eye and that it would take no more than a day or two from the time the Arab armies crossed the border until all the colonies were conquered and the enemy would throw down his arms and cast himself on their mercy.

By the end of January 1948, the exodus was so alarming the Palestine Arab Higher Committee asked neighboring Arab countries to refuse visas to these refugees and to seal the borders against them.

Meanwhile, Jewish leaders urged the Arabs to remain in Palestine and become citizens of Israel. The Assembly of Palestine Jewry issued this appeal on October 2, 1947:

We will do everything in our power to maintain peace, and establish a cooperation gainful to both [Jews and Arabs]. It is now, here and now, from Jerusalem itself, that a call must go out to the Arab nations to join forces with Jewry and the destined Jewish State and work shoulder to shoulder for our common good, for the peace and progress of sovereign equals.

In fact, had the Arabs accepted Israel's sovereignty in 1948, they would have not only a state to themselves, but there would be no refugee problem.

So, who is telling the truth? Keep in mind, the Arab propaganda machine has been spreading lies and insults ever since 1948. They claim the Jews are poisoning the wells, that they are stealing the organs of Palestinians and in the latest video, we are made to believe that little Jewish girls are singing songs about drinking the blood of Arabs.

Are you kidding me??? Look around, people. Exactly who is murdering who? I don't see Israelis blowing up buses, beheading people or knocking down skyscrapers. I don't see Israelis calling for the death of cartoonists or authors.

To me, the only way to accept that Israel is the villain - and in the words of Andrew Sullivan, a "mistake" - is to completely ignore the facts on the ground. And why would someone do that?

We hear from the left, all the time, that Israel is a horrible country because the UN spends so much time vilifying it. And why do you think that is? After all, there are genocides in Turkey, Rwanda and the Sudan. Iran is ignoring the world by developing nuclear weapons, yet what the heck is the UN doing about it?

Arab leaders scream that Israel has nukes as well. But truthfully, is anyone really worried that Israel is going to nuke anyone? If they were, why haven't they? If Israel wanted to, they could have taken over the entire region. They have the military power. And yet, tiny Israel gives millions of humanitarian aid to the Muslims in Gaza, and they've given even more treasure to the Palestinian Authority. In addition, they have given back the Sinai - which was captured in a defensive war - allowed Yasser Arafat to try and create a nation in the West Bank and have suffered through thousands of rockets fired at her from Gaza - after she gave the land back to the Arabs because Egypt, the nation who controlled it before that defensive war, didn't want it back.

And yet, here we are in 2010, having people have to make a case for Israel. Why?

What I find even more amazing is that in return for much of the land that the world disputes, Israel wants just one thing - peace. Why is it that every time there is a peace treaty, one of the things Israel demands is the "right to exist." The United Nations granted that right in 1948. Does Iran need a right to exist? Does Syria? Does the United States?

No, just Israel has to suffer the ignominy of having to justify their position as a country.

And the reason is because the Arabs never accepted Israel and never will. But the Arab countries were created with the same cloth Israel was. Lebanon didn't exist as a country prior to World War II. Neither did all the other nations that were part of the old Ottoman Empire. Yet the only people who are denied this right are the Jews, who happen to be the ones who have been there the longest.

Call it whatever you want. But that, to me, is the ultimate anti-Semitic insult.

Once again, Doug Ross nails it...

Nicholas Kristof Channels Julius Streicher

If The New York Times is employing Nicholas Kristof to write pure unvarnished satire, they're definitely getting their money's worth. Unfortunately for them, they still think he's a serious opinion columnist, which pretty much describes the state of the newspaper business. If you're wondering why proxies for the Constitutionally-challenged administration -- in this case, the FTC -- are bandying about a bailout of newspapers, you can chalk it up to turds like Kristof.

His latest excretion would be laughable if the propaganda weren't so eerily reminiscent of Julius Streicher.

When reports first circulated on Twitter of a deadly attack by Israeli commandos on the Gaza flotilla, I didn’t forward them because they seemed implausible. I thought: Israel wouldn’t be so obtuse as to use lethal force on self-described peace activists* in international waters with scores of reporters watching.

* Peace activists pictured above.

Notice how Kristof uses a completely skewed lens through which to view the events. The reporters were members of a pre-positioned Al Jazeera propaganda team; the activists on the sixth boat were Turkish extremists aligned with Islamist terror groups; and the Israelis were armed with paintball guns as their primary weapons.

No matter.

...[Israel] lashes out with force in ways that undermine its own interests. It is on a path that could eventually be catastrophic.

Lashes out.

After being beaten by "humanitarian peace activists" with sharpened iron pipes, stabbed with knives, and shot, Israeli forces saved their own lives by popping a few caps into some terrorists.

In fact, the humanitarian greeting party had equipped themselves with nooses so they could hang the Israelis until they were dead.

No matter.

There’s no question that Israel faces existential threats. That should make its leaders focused above all on two things: an Arab-Israeli treaty and pressure on Iran to drop its nuclear program.

Oh, gee -- you mean like waiting several f***ing decades for the international community to do something about the terrorists in Iran? What a great f***ing idea! Why didn't Obama think of that?

Israel could also cultivate Turkey, a central player in the effort to press Iran. Instead, Israel’s storming of a Turkish-flagged vessel in international waters was a huge setback to efforts to win new sanctions on Iran.

This paragraph has convinced me that were someone to perform an MRI* on Nicholas Kristof's cranium, they would discover 100% pure fecal matter.

* After waiting the mandatory nine months under DemCare, that is.

Now, I'm not a "pro journalist" like Nick, but even I know that Turkey has a freaking Islamist government that's about as open to negotiating with Israel as Bill Keller is to hiring AllahPundit as a Dowd replacement.

No matter.

Israel is also antagonizing its support base in the United States, which is critical to protect it from those existential threats.

Perhaps if the entire legacy media complex and the leftist blogosphere weren't busily heaving Streicher-esque propaganda from Al-Jazeera at the electorate, there wouldn't be as many "inflamed" members of the base. As it is, conservatives appear to be the only staunch defenders of our strongest ally in the Middle East.

No matter.

Israel’s hard-line policies are depleting America’s international political capital as well as its own.

The Kristof definition of 'hard-line': trying to prevent Hamas from importing rockets that target civilians with random bursts of brutality.

No other country would put up with the s*** that Israel puts up with. And yet Kristof calls them 'hard-line'.

No matter.

When you visit Gaza, you see that the siege has accomplished nothing — except to devastate the lives of 1.5 million ordinary Gazans. Gisha, an Israeli human rights organization, has compiled a list of goods that Israel typically blocks from Gaza: notebooks, blank paper, writing utensils, coriander, chocolate, fishing rods, and countless more. That’s not security; that’s a travesty.

Yes, there's quite a humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

In fact, Kristof never bothers to ask why the hell is Egypt blockading its border with Gaza?

Why is Egypt preventing free trade with its Arab brothers and sisters in Gaza?

Why is Egypt instigating this vast "humanitarian crisis" by sealing the border with Gaza?

No matter.

President Obama needs to find his voice and push hard for an end to the Gaza blockade. He needs to talk sense to Israel and encourage it to back away from its plans to intercept other flotillas now headed for Gaza — that would be a catastrophe for Israel and America alike.

Above all, he needs to nudge Israel away from its tendency to shoot itself in the foot, and us along with it.

Either Kristof is a propagandist in the style of Leni Riefenstahl and Julius Streicher -- or he has all of the analytical skills of dessicated sheep s***.

Because when it comes to Kristof -- or the Times -- facts, logic and reason don't matter.

Hacks like this will need a hell of a lot more than the FTC to bail out this much stupid.

Why the "Helen Thomas Issue" Matters

It has long been accepted that Helen Thomas, the so-called Dean of the White House press corps, is no longer relevant as a journalist. Most of the time, she is simply ignored, with perhaps a roll of the eyes. You can almost hear most of her fellow journalists saying "oh, that's just Helen being Helen." Sort of like the crazy aunt with the 15 cats.

However, while she is mostly cast aside as a serious journalist now, she still holds court at the most senior White House correspondent. Often, especially when a Democrat is in the White House, hers is the first question allowed during Presidential press conferences.

For many years, Thomas has been quite vocal about her disdain for the State of Israel. Although born in Kentucky, her parents were Lebanese immigrants who settled in Detroit soon after her birth. Her pro-Palestinian views were never more exposed than when her false claims of one-sided Israeli aggression was answered by then-White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, thanking her for "the Hezbollah view."

So was it that much of a surprise that Thomas was caught on camera saying this?

"Tell them (Israelis) to get the hell out of Palestine. Remember, these people are occupied and it's their land. Not Germany. Not Poland."

When the questioner, who knew he's caught a live one, asked what Jews should so, Thomas didn't miss a beat, saying "They go home. Poland. Germany. And America and everywhere else."

So, why should it matter what this old, most certainly senile old biddy says?

It matters precisely because who she is and who, as a member of the White House Press Corps, is. Because of her lofty place of honor, she is someone who is supposedly a person of virtue and honor. Journalists are to recognized for their devotion to the truth. And yet, everything Thomas said here is ignorant and false, not to mention deeply anti-Semitic.

The fact is, had she said this and instead of talking about the Jews, said that the Blacks should go back to Africa, or that the Hispanics should go back to Mexico, what would the media do? Aside from an enormous uproar to have her fired, I could see President Obama criticizing her for her racist views. Every network on TV would attack her the same way they attacked Jimmy the Greek, or Rush Limbaugh, when he said Donovan McNabb was overrated. Even Slate Magazine, a true bastion of liberalism, came out and agreed with Limbaugh's assessment.

But Rush was torn apart in the media, fired from hos job on ESPN and it directly affected his attempt to purchase the St. Louis Rams a few years later.

But of course, when it comes to Israel and the Jews, nary a peep is heard. Certainly, conservative blogs are all over this. What's remarkable is how the Right is constantly slurred as racists, and the like, while the majority of Jews vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Yet, once again, it is only the Right that is standing up for the State of Israel.

By taking the stance that this is just Helen being Helen, the media (as well as the President, by not commenting) is being complicit in the frightening rise of acceptance of Jew-hatred. But, of course, this is nothing new from the Obama White House. Since taking office, the President has cast Israel as the reason for the Middle East troubles. His slobbering over the Iranians and Syrians, his outrageous condemnation of Israel building in its' capitol and she shameful treatment of Prime Minister Netanyahu have given anti-Semites reason to increase their vilification of Israel and the Jews. There is a reason why only 6% of the Israelis approve of the American President. They remember when he said "“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

The point is, 75 years after the Holocaust, anti-Semitism is becoming the norm again. As Islam infiltrates more and more countries, they bring with them a revisionist history of the world. When you add this to the dark anti-Semitism of old Europe, you end up with the seeds for another genocide. IF we allow crazy old Helen a continued platform to spread her vile falsehoods and anti-Semitic rants, we are equally as guilty as if we said them ourselves.

Thomas did attempt an apology of sorts. But if taken at her word, she has to be lying. You can not say "I believe such and such" one day and then say "that isn't what I believe" the next. One of those comments must be a lie. As a member of the free press, that alone should disqualify her from her job.

But the blatant racism of her comments, along with her long history of hostility and ignorant statements about Israel, should immediately cause her dismissal. She is an embarrassment to her employers, her industry and to her country. It's time she be treated as such.

These two short paragraphs, written today by Jonah Goldberg, really is the proof that the vilification of Israel is pure , anti-Semitic hate:

North Korea recently sank a South Korean ship. The international reaction has been muted and sober. Turkey -- the Palestinians' new champion -- has been treating Kurdish nationalists harshly for generations; no one cares. The Russians crush Chechens, the Chinese trample Uighurs. Real genocides unfold regularly in Africa. Iran is pursuing a nuclear bomb. Hamas is openly dedicated to the destruction of Israel. So is Iran.

And yet the only villain as far as much of the world is concerned is Israel. Always Israel.

That this has been going on for so many years only proves my point further.

Andrew Klavan: Fun With Anti-Semitism

As usual, my friend Robert Avrech states it better than I could ever hope to:

Massacre on the High Seas

South Korean Navy patrol combat corvettes stage an anti-submarine exercise off the western coast of Taean. (Reuters)

It is true.

There was a massacre on the high seas.

Innocent men were murdered by a terrorist regime.

Of course, Seraphic Secret is talking about the 46 sailors, aboard a South Korean submarine.

It has been established, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that North Korea, unprovoked, torpedoed and sank the South Korean sub.

The UN sprang into action, condemning the North Korean regime.

Just kidding.

And naturally, the streets of Europe are choked with peace-loving activists objecting to this wanton act of murder.

Not.

And you can bet your bottom dollar that scores of, ahem, human rights activists have organized a flotilla to bring aid to the people of North Korea who are under blockade—by their own government.

Again, just kidding.

North Korea.

The most repressive regime on the face of the earth. During the 90's a government-manufactured famine caused approximately 2.5 million deaths—probably more—from starvation and disease.

The notorious North Korean gulags make the Soviet gulags look like Club Med. Over a million prisoners, including women and children, subsist on tree bark and grass; for protein, they forage for worms and insects.

Infants born with physical and mental disabilities are not allowed to live in Pyongyang, the North Korean capital. Reports indicate that in some areas, infants with disabilities are murdered.

Satellite images of North Korea taken at night show a dark blotch. That's because the electrical grids do not function. In contrast, South Korea sparkles like a diamond.

Ordinary citizens do not have refrigerators or stoves. They cook over open flames. Stationery—we're talking about paper—is only available to government officials and trusted university students. The regime does not want people keeping diaries or writing letters to, well, anybody.

No computers or phones.

Of course, no internet.

North Koreans are caged, not just in their hermit country, but forbidden to travel from one city or village to the next without an official permit. Caught without a proper pass, North Koreans are tortured—and they do not bother with stuff like water-boarding, they just rip out your fingernails—and jailed for years, if not secretly executed.

One in five citizens works for state security in one way or the other. In short, North Korea is a nation of informers. Parents cannot trust their children, and husbands and wives can never really know if they are sleeping with the enemy.

There is no banking system.

No judicial system.

Religion is forbidden.

Everyone worships the Dear Leader, Kim Jong Il, a certifiable lunatic who commits mass murder every single day, and threatens a nuclear holocaust on South Korea.

The suffering in North Korea is beyond imagination.

So, you would think that all these peace activists and human rights groups would be storming the North Korean border in order to break the regime's blockade.

But that's not exactly happening.

In fact, the international left who are so shrill and self-righteous in their defense of the proudly Jew-hating, genocidal-yearning Hamas jihadists—their charter, partly based on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, calls for the destruction of Israel and the extermination of all Jews—of Gaza, are curiously silent when it comes to the terrorist North Korean regime.

You know why?

1. The North Koreans would exterminate the protestors without apology. So, y'know, it's actually kind of dangrous. Nork soldiers do not pack painball guns.

2. Jews do not run North Korea.

Anybody detect a pattern?

Flotilla Choir presents: We Con the World

Obama Sinks to a New Low

Just when I thought our President reached the lowest he could get, this news breaks:

From Hillary Clinton (State Department):

“The United States supports the Security Counsel’s condemnation of the acts leading to this tragedy and we urge Israel to permit full counselor access to the individuals involved and to allow the countries concerned to retrieve their deceased and wounded immediately.”

Are you kidding me??? Condemn? Hey, Barack - how about condemning Turkey for sending this disgusting group of anti-Semites where they knew not to go? How about condemning the lunatic in Iran for his verbal aggression towards the only true democracy in the Middle East? How about condemning the rabidly anti-American reconquistas who openly, and violently murder innocent people along the border?

No President in the 62 years of Israeli independence has ever been so blatantly hostile to the Jewish State. To condemn what Israel had to do is to ignore the homicidal intent of the Muslim world.

Of course, given what we've seen and heard from this administration over the past 16 months, none of this is the least bit surprising. After all, how can you fight an enemy you refuse to recognize.

These are extraordinarily dangerous times, and we are stuck with a President who hates his own country. He is an embarrassment to this nation and a complete failure as a leader. To take the side of Turkey (and the Islamic bloc) is simply the latest abomination. But in doing so, he demeans the office of President.

Presidents are suppose to understand the world and be able to tell right from wrong. As someone who claimed to stand for truth and shun politics, he is either wholly incompetent, or a liar. Take your pick.

The flotilla was nothing more than a political shot across Israel's bow. They were warned before even setting sail not to try and enter Gaza. They were warned again before the IDF boarded the ship. The fact that the soldiers were carrying paint guns shows that they had no intention of hostile battle. Yet anyone who watched the video can see that these "humanitarians" were prepared with weapons of their own. Only when it became a self-defense mission, did the IDF use live ammo.

In video testimonies, the people responsible for the flotilla openly admitted that the shipment of aid was but a ruse to start trouble. And yet, here is our President, condemning the Jews from protecting themselves.

I certainly was not surprised by the comments of the Turkish Prime Minister. He said that this was Turkey's 9/11. Oh really? Did the Israeli's slaughter 3,000 innocent people who were simply minding their own business? I expect that asshole to use this incident to once again vilify Israel. But it is tremendously insulting to Americans to equate this with 9/11.

Of course, Mr. Obama remained silent on that. Personally, I suspect he blames Mossad for 9/11 as well.

President Obama is a sick joke played on us by the conniving left. For 16 months, he has done nothing to better our nation and countless things to weaken her. Seriously, name me one example of him sticking up for everyday Americans. Just one.

What a sick man and what a disgusting act of cowardice.

Sometimes, I come across an editorial that is so prescient that I feel I have to post it in its entirety. I hope you find this as beneficial as I did:

Bill Maher's ‘Black’ President (JWR)
by Arnold Ahlert

"I thought when we elected a black president, we were going to get a black president. You know, this [BP oil spill] is where I want a real black president. I want him in a meeting with the BP CEOs, you know, where he lifts up his shirt where you can see the gun in his pants. That's -- (in black man voice) we've got a 'motherfu**ing problem here?' Shoot somebody in the foot." -- Bill Maher

Ordinarily, I wouldn't bother wasting a column on a pipsqueak like Bill Maher. His track record of contempt for ordinary Americans--which dovetails quite nicely with his elitist sense of superiority--is long and well known. Yet the above remark is both so utterly racist and so wonderfully revealing with regard to the liberal mindset, I couldn't resist.

First context. Imagine Rush Limbaugh saying the exact same thing. Can you imagine the very same Bill Maher among those leading the charge against Limbaugh for his "vile, racist" remarks? Can you picture him and other liberals foaming at the mouth, demanding Limbaugh be fired, or insisting that advertisers boycott his radio show? Sure you can. Can you imagine liberals turning on Maher for same remarks? Of course you can't.

Why is that? Because liberals can never be racists. Even when they make obviously racist remarks, their fallback position is the idea that they were illuminating something that forever lives in the minds of other people: Republicans, conservatives, red-necks, Christians, and every other "racist" group in a "hopelessly racist" country.

A perfect analogy for such a blatant double-standard can be found in the usage of a single word: nigger. It is a word for which context is everything. It is the word which banishes a Caucasian to the depths of hell for a single utterance, yet remains in regular use among blacks themselves. And if one takes the teaching of radical leftist professor Cornel West seriously, blacks get the same dispensation as liberals: they too can never be racist under any circumstances.

But what picture is Bill Maher painting? Does the word "stereotype" ring a bell? According to Maher, a "real" black is a street thug with a foul mouth and a gun in his waistband to back it up. A real black is someone which requires Maher to change the inflection of his speaking voice in order to make sure people understand what a "real" black man sounds like.

Get it?

Despite the denials of our leftist elitists, racists come in all shapes, sizes and ethnicities. Those who harbor genuine prejudice in their hearts are not limited to any specific group. But every dubious aspect of human behavior has its strains, ranging from moderate to virulent.

Liberal racism is the most virulent racism on the planet.

Why? Because liberal racism is papered over with a patina of legitimacy based on "good intentions." It doesn't matter that the emergence of the welfare state, aka LBJ's Great Society, virtually destroyed the nuclear family in the black community, which now "boasts" an illegitimacy rate of nearly eighty percent. All that matters is liberals made a "valiant" attempt to lift black America out of poverty. It doesn't matter that the essence of affirmative action is the idea that blacks are inherently inferior to other minority groups. All that matters is that America's involvement with slavery--over one hundred and thirty five years ago--be "counter-balanced" with preferential treatment. Make that preferential treatment to the point of absurdity, as in the University of Michigan adding 20 points to a minority applicant's college admission ratings, simply for being a minority--or the city of Hartford Connecticut's attempt to invalidate a promotional exam for firemen because no blacks passed the test.

At the center of liberal racism is the most pernicious idea of all: black America is mired in perpetual victimhood which can only be alleviated by massive government--run by liberals. Maher's description of a real black man is directly attributable to liberals' determination to spread the message that life is so hopeless, becoming a street thug is a perfectly legitimate response to such despair. In fact, for Maher and others like him it is much more than that: it is apparently one of the prerequisites for "authenticity" among black males.

The results of buying into such authenticity? Nearly 25% of black males in their twenties are in jail, on parole, or on probation.

There are millions of liberals just like Bill Maher. It is the liberal media machine which ignores intellectual blacks like Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams and elevates racial hucksters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to the level of "community spokesmen." It is our leftist-dominated entertainment complex which continues to glorify black low-lifes and gang-bangers in music and on film. It is the liberal academics who continue to insist that America is a fundamentally racist nation, and that "reparation" must be made to people who never experienced slavery by people who never engaged in it And it is virtually all liberals who believe that anyone daring to question their interpretation of, and "solutions" for, racism must be racist themselves.

Such an assessment also applies black Americans who dare to stray from the liberal plantation. Other than perhaps Robert Bork, I can think of no Supreme Court nominee who was treated more reprehensibly than Clarence Thomas. His nomination process was every bit the "high tech lynching" by liberal Democrats as he so aptly described it. Since then, he has been characterized as a "house nigger," pictured as a lawn jockey on a magazine cover, and prompted Julianne Malveaux, a black woman and a college president, to "hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease...."

The perpetrators of such overt hatred? Liberals, one and all.

Bill Maher may get criticism for the above remarks from those on the right, but he'll get the same free pass from liberals who routinely forgive one of their own for "mis-speaking," no matter how offensive. Yet what's more interesting is Maher's thought process itself. The bet here is it either never even occurred to him what he was saying was racist--or that the effort to be amusing confers an automatic exemption from his bigotry, as long as one is liberal. It would be fascinating to know what the president himself, whose first impulse was to accuse the Cambridge police of "stupid" behavior with regard their handling of Louis Gates, would have to say about Maher's assessment of a"real" black president.

We'll probably never know. Our "unbiased" media has never demonstrated much of an appetite for pursuing racism whenever it emanates from the left side of the political spectrum. It has taken more than forty years to grudgingly admit that fellow liberal Daniel Patrick Moynihan might have been onto something when he warned that the destruction of the black nuclear family would yield disastrous consequences. And yet even as liberals finally acknowledge Moynihan's prescience, they continue to insist the expansion of the welfare state and the inculcation of the victimist mentality among blacks has nothing to do with it. Such an admission would be fatal for leftists who have come to take the support of black America completely for granted. Those who believe in ever-expanding government recognize the need for a steady supply of "beneficiaries"--no matter how destructive ongoing dependency on government is for the beneficiaries themselves.

Better a black victim who votes Democrat than a self-sufficient human being who might not. Better a man convinced that being judged by the color of his skin is better than being judged by the content of his character. Better hordes of restless young men being ministered to by bureaucrats than raised by their own fathers. Better lousy, unionized, inner-city public schools than school choice. Better institutionalized despair than individual hope. Better quota systems than level playing fields. Better equality of outcome than equality of opportunity.

Better to be a "real" black--right Mr. Maher?