Sunday, February 27, 2011

Making Sense of it All
Part I

It's been a while since I've written an original post. I think I know why I fall out the mood to write, though. It would be easy to blame the fact that there are (as of February 16th) 156 million different blogs on the web. Of course, many of them have long been abandoned and even more of them are simply created as advertisements for products (or porn).

I don't know how many blogs have lasted as long as this one has. I started mine way back in April 2004 - almost 7 long years ago. I think that alone is a terrific accomplishment. Heck, aside from being a parent and a husband (the latter ending after 20 years), I don't think I've ever dome anything for 7 years!

I think what causes me to be so inconsistent lately are a couple of different things. For one thing, my latest job takes up a great deal of time and since I work mostly in the afternoons and evenings, by the time I get home I'm often too damn tired to write.

Another reason is more political. While it doesn't really bother me that I don't average a lot of readers (I did when I was more consistent), I sometimes feel like I have nothing tangible to add to the conversation. Many of my influences write about certain topics so well, that I feel I'm just echoing their comments. What would the point of that be? That's why I have been posting articles from these writers who tell it better than I could ever hope to.

That being said, I do feel there are certain topics that I have to ability to discuss in perhaps ways that aren't always so easy to understand from the big guys. My hope is that perhaps my way of writing, with the passion I have for the subject may influence, or educate you, the reader.

1. The Middle East

A number of people I have heard from, or spoken to, often contradict themselves in regard to what has been happening in the Mideast and Northern Africa. It soon dawned on me that the reason for their confusion can be traced to the White House. Unfortunately, President Obama has been completely void of a true policy regarding the revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. Where that has been most glaring has been in his incoherent mixed messages to the leaders of these countries.

A year ago, when the Iranian students rose up to challenge Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Obama was eerily silent. At the time, he claimed it was not "our place" to interfere in other countries affairs. While there was some truth to that, it was clearly seen as Obama's way of sucking up to Iran, in hopes they would reconsider their nuclear ambitions.

It failed and all it accomplished was to show the Iranian protesters that the leader of the free world didn't care about their desire for freedom.

When Tunisia fell to revolution, gain the President voted "present." Assumedly, since there really was no connection between the Tunisians and the United States, it appeared that Obama was following his original doctrine. Of course, this doctrine did not include Israel - whom Obama was clearly willing and able to interfere, and did - much to the chagrin of the Israelis.

However, when the Egyptians rose up to overthrow Hosni Mubarak - like the Israelis, a friend and ally of Washington - suddenly (after a few days) Obama found his voice. Of course, he also changed his mind daily as to what to do. Because he had no coherent policy and seemed to be completely taken by surprise (which was odd, since both the Israeli government and his own State department warned him of the unrest and, if nothing else, Tunisia should have woken him up). At first, Obama called for calm. Then he announced Mubarak MUST step down. The next day, he changed his stance and told Mubarak to stay and orderly transfer his power. A day later, Obama told Mubarak to resign immediately.

Of course, by this point, Mubarak understood the weakness of our President and told him to stick it.

And then, Libya erupted. And where was Obama? Well, Libya poses a different problem for the President. For one thing, members of his inner circle have been great supporters of Libyan President-for-Life
Moammar Khadafy (or however you spell it today). While it would be cynicle to claim that these connections caused Obama to delay interfering, it is hard to assume it wasn't an issue.

Still, as
Khadafy began turning his military against the people, Obama sat on the sidelines - even though the Libyan ambassador pleaded with Obama to take the threat of what was happening seriously - even going so far as informing the State department that Khadafy was willing to use chemical weapons to stave off the revolution.

Now, almost a week later, Obama has finally made some noise and informed
Khadafy he must step down.

Ouch. That must really sting, huh? How about sending a naval fleet to Tripoli to force him to step down?

All this has shown is that when it comes to American allies, Obama feels no shame in demanding his way. But when dealing with America's enemies, he changes his direction. Of course, to the rest of the world, this shows Obama to be not only very weak, but also incompetent. It's one thing to be caught off guard - hey, it happens. But to then do it again and again, it shows a basic lack of understanding about the world in general, and the region in particular. Especially painful was watching how poorly Obama treated Mubarak.

The other side of the coin is how poorly the State department understands the dynamics of the Middle East. It started recently with the
Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper testifying that the Muslim Brotherhood was mostly secular. Of course, anyone who actually listens to their representatives know just how insane that comment is.

But in fact, this fecklessness can be traced all the way back to the Jimmy Carter administration and how they handled the Iranian revolution of 1979. But Carter was not the only culprit. As much as it pains me to admit it, every President - including Reagan - failed to fully appreciate the growing threat of radical Islam. I cringed whenever President Bush (W.) called Islam the "religion of peace."

By failing to recognize - or if they did recognize, but simply ignored - the death cult of Islam, they allowed the American left to control the conversation. Students in schools were taught all about the virtues of "multiculturism" - a subject that Germany, Denmark, Great Britain and France have all admitted to be a colossal mistake. Yet, as the European countries begin to take measures to correct this monumental blunder (which, in some cases may be too late), the American left, led by President Obama, continue to stick their heads in the sand.

I'm amazed at the fact that poll after poll claims that the United States is a "center-right" nation. In fact, there are more than twice as many people who consider themselves "conservative" than there are those who consider themselves "liberal." Yet it seems, in almost every instance, policies and laws put in place in this country over the past 50 years have moved the country leftward.

The midterm elections this past year may have actually slowed the tide, however. But from what we are witnessing in Wisconsin shows that the left is not about to concede any ground. In 32008, President Obama famously announced that "elections have consequences." Yet in Wisconsin, it seems the left didn't get the memo.

I'll discuss more of this in part two.

Monday, February 21, 2011

There is so much I can say about the Wisconsin protests. But I will leave it to Arnold Alhert, who explains in great deal how insane this whole thing is. It is well word reading.

Wisconsin: Progressivism in All its Ugly Glory (JWR)

By the time you read this, we will all have been "Wisconsin-ed" up to our eyeballs. Yet when one cuts through all the blather--the worst of which is ludicrous attempt by our thoroughly debauched media to portray fleeing Democrats Senators as "heroes"--what we are seeing is the first serious campaigning for the 2012 election. The battle lines couldn't be clearer: either the public will wrest this country back from the serial abusers for whom no government deficits are too large, no compensation packages too lavish and no special interest groups are too special, or we will all become vassals of their self-righteous, progressive tyranny.

Don't think for a second that the appearance in Wisconsin of the Democratic National Committee, along with Barack Obama's Organizing for America, is merely a show of "solidarity" with the "oppressed" public service employees. Wisconsin has become Ground Zero for a progressive movement quite comfortable with the use of intimidation, threats of harm and precisely the same hateful rhetoric they accuse conservatives of perpetrating whenever that particular bit of hypocrisy suits their purposes.

To put it succinctly, progressivism is all about the ends justifying the means. Once one understands that, everything else becomes clear. It makes it easy to understand why the same president who reminded Republicans that "I won" as the singular justification to implement his agenda, is taking the side of cowardly Wisconsin Democrat Senators who have made it clear that winning only counts when their side is victorious. It makes it just as easy to understand why a mainstream media which no longer makes even a cursory attempt to maintain their integrity will never ask that president how he could align himself with those who willingly abandon the bedrock process of our democratic republic.

It makes it easy to understand why the same media which laughably refers to the protests as our "Egyptian moment" can willfully ignore the reality that Egyptian protesters were rallying for democracy while those in Wisconsin want democracy subverted. It makes it easy to understand why they did everything they could to find evidence of hate within the Tea Party movement--to the point of lying about it as they did when they claimed racial slurs were directed at members of Congressional Black Caucus outside the Capitol last year--even as they studiously ignore blatant manifestations of hatred directed at Governor Walker and Republicans in Wisconsin.

Here's something else they've studiously ignored: at a March 2, 2010 meeting of the Milwaukee School Board, Deb Wegner, Manager of Financial Planning in that city, revealed that the 2011 average annual salary for a teacher there would be maintained at the 2010 level--of $56,500. When benefits are factored in? Teachers total compensation was projected to rise--from $95,316 to $100,005. Average median income in Milwaukee from 2006-2008, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau?

Just over $19,000.

That's something worth remembering while teachers are being portrayed as victims. It's also worth remembering many of those same teachers had no qualms whatsoever, not only about ditching school for three days last week forcing many of them to close, but dragging along some of their students to protest as well. For progressives, no one, not even children, are exempt from being used to further their ends.

This is one American who couldn't be happier with the current developments. From the president's characterization of the attempt by Wisconsin to reign in the excess of public sector unions as an "assault," to Rep. Nancy Pelosi "standing in solidarity" with those who have nothing but contempt for the will of the taxpaying majority, the ugly face of progressivism is being brought into an unprecedented level of focus.

For years, Democrats, their media enablers and their special interest groups have been able to mask their utter contempt for the American public (hopelessly stupid), the Constitution (completely elastic) and American exceptionalism (jingoistic hogwash). In 2008, the facade was partially removed when they arrogantly believed they would, as James Carville put it, "rule for forty years."

In 2011, arrogance has given way to fear, and what we're seeing in Wisconsin is the further unmasking of a progressive movement fighting for survival. We are seeing the president who ran as the great uniter being revealed for the class-war-faring, community organizing rabble-rouser has has always been. We are seeing the unbridled sense of entitlement of public service employees who would run every state in the country into bankruptcy--as long as they get theirs. We are seeing the unmitigated gall of Democratic legislators who would violate their oath of office without an ounce of remorse. We are witnessing a corrupt media once again trying to manipulate an American public increasingly aware and scornful of such attempts.

Between now and 2012, Americans should prepare themselves for a level of hatred, lying, character assassination, and quite possibly violence that will arise when those long used to getting their way are challenged as they have never been before. The Takers--from the crony capitalists on top to the rapacious public service unions in the middle, to the entitlement crowd and their community shakedown artists and racial hucksters on the bottom--know they are in trouble.

And they are in trouble for a very simple reason: the heart of progressivism is indecency. It is an indecency which seeks first to divide Americans and then conquer them--for our own good. It is an indecency which sees every American, not as as individual, but as a cog in a giant socialist machine that is supposed to take us to Utopia. It is an indecency which sees self-interest and selfishness as one and the same, talent as something to be exploited, and individual ambition as something to be tethered to the "greater good." If democracy or the rule of law becomes an impediment along the way, it is to be intimidated, demonstrated against, deliberately mis-characterized by the media--and ignored by the Justice Department, the czars, and answer-to-no-one-but-the-president bureaucrats.

The demonstrators in Wisconsin are "Egyptians?" Try Greeks. Try rioting French and English youths. Try the millions of self-entitled workers in Europe whose own gravy train has run out of gravy. Heroes? Even a hero sandwich has more class than this rabble, and the bet here is most decent Americans know it.

And I'm betting they'll say so in no uncertain terms in 2012.

Monday, February 07, 2011

Although I have rarely linked to Yid With Lid. but that is not because of anything personal against him. In fact, he is one of my favorite bloggers. If not for Yid, the whole Helen Thomas story would perhaps not have seen the light of day. So I take his foresight seriously.

He posted what I really believe is a well thought out and reasoned defense of FOX News host Glenn Beck. I recall, not too long ago, someone making the argument that Beck is an antisemite. Of course, after researching it a bit (I have watched and listened to his show and had never come to that conclusion myself and I doubt my friend had ever listened to a word Beck has ever said, as well) and realized the source of my friend's comment was from Media Matters. At the time, all I really knew about MM was that they were left-wing and hated conservatives.

So when I read Yid's article today, I was thrilled to see him investigate this in more detail and am not the least bit surprised at his conclusion:

The 7 DUMBEST Charges of Antisemitism Made Against Glenn Beck By The Soros Progressive Hit Team

From their perspective, Media Matters' targeting of Glenn Beck is almost understandable, after all the radio host/TV commentator has been warning people how the progressive agenda is a danger to American freedom for a long time. He has also been exposing, George Soros, also known as "Spooky Dude" who is the Sugar Daddy for much of the progressive movement, including Media Matters.

What Media Matters doesn't like to talk about is the fact that Soros is a major funder of the organization, most of the funding is indirect. Three different Soros charitable foundations, individual members of the Soros family, and the Geosor Corporation give hundreds of millions of dollars to The Open Society Institute (see page 18 of the Institute's nonprofit tax return posted here). Open Society gives money to the Center for American Progress who gives money to Media Matters. Another Soros funded group that helps Media Matters is the Democracy Alliance, and recently Soros gave a large and public chunk of money to Media matters, calling it the "first ever" donation by the financier (except for all the other I suppose). Keep in mind that Media Matters is not required to list its donors, this information comes from the tax returns of the foundations that give it money, so there may be other donations not discovered.


Media Matters attacks on Beck have reached almost comic proportions---an incredible obsession. A search of Media Matters on site search engine reports the Soros-controlled media police posted 2,460 anti-Beck posts between January 4, 2010 and October 5th (the day before they began their strategy of trying to brand the Commentator as a Jew-hater. Let that number roll around in your mind for a second–2,460 posts in 274 days–that’s an average of nine posts a day and (if he didn’t miss a TV or radio show) 13 posts per program. It was obvious that either Media Matters and Mr. Soros had it in for Glenn Beck or someone has some sort of kinky crush on the Fox star.

Media Matters began a "Glenn Beck has a Jewish Problem" hit job in October when the the commentator dedicated a program to outlining George Soros’ political network and exposing Spooky Dude’s history of currency manipulation and it continues through today with the bogus charges of 400 rabbis, blessed by Media Matters and promoted by the Progressive mainstream media.

False charges of Antisemitism are a particular hot button of mine. As a Jew, every time I hear someone being bullied with false charges of Antisemitism I an compelled to offer a defense (usually that deflects the bully’s anger toward my direction).

That doesn't mean I reject all charges of Antisemitism. When charges are valid I just vigorously attack the bigot, such as when my friend Rabbi Nessenoff asked me what to do with this little video he took of Helen Thomas. I quickly posted it on my site The Lid, at Big Journalism, gave it to Scott Baker who at the time was running Breitbart TV , sent out tweets and emails to most of the large sites. By the end of the day it was on radio and TV and the calls for Thomas’ head were all over the place, and my friend Rabbi Nessenoff's face was all over the media.

In the case of Media Matters and Sugar-Daddy George's progressive hit squad, branding Beck as Antisemitic was a brilliant strategy at times they brought back memories of the All in the Family episode where Mr. Rabinowitz, Archie Bunker's attorney advised,
In a court of law, you can’t beat a station wagon filled with nuns!
Though in the case of Soros progressive hit squad, it was an open letter with 400 Rabbis.

Thankfully the attempt to brand Glenn Beck as an anti-Semite isn't working for two reasons. First of all and most importantly it's not true. As a regular listener of Beck's radio show and a semi-regular viewer of his TV offerings, if there was the slightest hint of Antisemitism coming out of the Fox broadcaster's mouth I would be attacking him relentlessly. Just as I continue to attack people like WFAN's Mike Francesa and his former partner Chris Russo, who reacted to 9/11 by calling for Jews to take a loyalty oath.

The other mistake made by the Soros hit team lead by Media Matters was over reach. The few months have seen some of the the lamest allegations of Antisemitism made since biblical times, when God told Abraham to leave the Mesopotamian City of Ur the land of his birth, his kindred and his father’s house, move to the Holy Land to create the first “Jewish neighborhood.”

These, in my humble opinion are the lamest.


1) Just What The Heck Were They Smoking? In early October Beck covered Soros’ history as a currency speculator whose sometimes underhanded dealing brought down the British pound sterling and an insider trading conviction in France . He had also been accused of triggering the economic meltdown of Southeast Asian currencies in 1997.

Beck claimed Soros,
“rolled the dice in ‘97 in Asia, and many, including the Malaysian prime minister, believe it was billionaire speculator George Soros who helped trigger the economic meltdown that spread through Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines.”
Media Matters turned this Beck program into Antisemitism with some pretty inventive and twisted logic. Try to follow this (if you can)— since Beck mentioned Soros was accused of doing underhanded dealing by the Malaysian Prime Minister—and since the Malaysian PM is a serial anti-Semite who once said Soros’ currency dealings were part of a Jewish conspiracy–and since Soros is Jewish—well then, that must mean Beck must be a Jew-hater who believes that Jews run the banks. Understand? No, I didn’t think so. Don’t feel bad because it doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense and it ignores the fact that, well Soros' has been underhanded if you consider a insider trading underhanded. This charge was reminiscent of those weird questions found on the S.A.T. exams in the 1970s. Remember? —Cat is to Dog as hamburger is to automobile. You would be scratching your head for days trying to figure out what the exam’s creator smoking.

Besides being hard to follow, the other problem with the Media Matters charge was Beck did not mention or even hint at the word Jew in his discourse. Of course according to the Media Matters playbook Beck’s omission of any tie to the Jews is not a concern, because like the Ministry of Truth from 1984 truth is not their concern.





2) OOPS, I Guess I Should Have Checked My Mail. During a series about Soros in November, Beck used an interview Soros did with 60 Minutes where the Pope of Progressivism discussed how he helped to confiscate Jewish property:
KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. That’s right. Yes.

KROFT: I mean, that’s–that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

Mr. SOROS: Not–not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don’t–you don’t see the connection. But it was–it created no–no problem at all.

KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

Mr. SOROS: No.
Ironically, Beck had used this passage to bring out sympathy for Soros,
But when he had to go over and take the lands from the people, his Jewish friends and neighbors who were being sent to the gas chambers, I can’t imagine what that would do to a teenager, or anybody, an adult—well, what did it do to George Soros.
Beck’s only real question about Soros and the Holocast era is why today at age 80, he considers it the happiest year of his life.



A few days later, Progressive leader Abe Foxman head of the ADL, who often works harder for progressive issues (such as late-term abortion rights and amnesty for illegal aliens) than Jewish issues criticized the way Beck handled his discussion of Soros’ youth in Nazi Hungry saying,

Glenn Beck’s description of George Soros’ actions during the Holocaust is completely inappropriate, offensive and over the top.
Foxman's charges indicated that he did not actually watch the program but was simply told about the quote and issued his rebuke. Unfortunately for the loyal progressive, Foxman had to "walk back” his criticism when Beck revealed a two week old letter he received from the ADL guru, apologizing for an earlier unfounded rebuke of the Fox commentator and praising the commentator as a friend to both to Israel and the Jewish Community.




3) You Say Tomato, I Say You Mean "Damn Those Jews." On November 9th of 2010 Media Matters attacked Beck-owned website, The Blaze for associating with anti-Semites.

The Blaze’s infraction was quoting Zubi Diamond, author of "The Wizards of Wall Street” to substantiate a claim that George Soros may be “betting on U.S. financial collapse.” According to Diamond, Soros’ agenda is “to destroy capitalism.”

According to Media Matters, when Diamond called Soros the “mastermind” behind of a “cabal of slithery rich” who “visited financial violence on the American people to get Barack Obama elected,” He was using anti-Semitic imagery. No really, they really made that claim.

4) Who Owns That Website- Oh I do. One would think that once Keith Olbermann left MSNBC there would be some movement toward sanity. However within days of the Master of Mean's firing, Cenk Uygur who was a temporary substitute for Olbermann's substitute decided to join in on the "fun" declaring that Glenn Beck had a Jewish problem.




Cenk must have been trying to impress his bosses with the charges against Beck but it was built on holes. Who cares if eight of those nine people Cenk cherry-picked were Jewish? Anybody can take a list and pick out the Jews. Most of the other names that Glenn Beck has criticized, indeed has devoted entire shows "attacking" include a host of gentiles: Bill Ayers, Woodrow Wilson, Van Jones, Mark Lloyd, Rev. Wright, Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, John Holdren, and Jim Wallis just to name a few. Indeed even the MSNBC personnel who Glenn Beck has locked horns with, such as Olbermann and Matthews, are not Jewish (thank you God!).
Using Cenk as a spokesman for protecting the Jews is a bit of a joke in itself. He has used the a modern version of the "blood libel" against the IDF, invokes a moral equivalency between terrorist acts and Israel's targeted attacks on Hamas leadership and in one Huffington Post article wrote that he can't stand Judaism (to be fair he can't stand Islam either).

Additionally Cenk Uygur runs a website called Young Turks which is loaded with Antisemitic comments. For example, this comment made by someone named kkdragonlord?
that makes me wonder, jews are mighty poweful over there with holywood and Israel holding America by the balls, what would be the problem with a jew President?

Christian right would freak out or something?

down here we even complain when our candidates try to make a big deal out of faith
Don't look at me, I don't have a problem with a "Jew president" but I would rather have a gentile who is a conservative, than a Jew who is a liberal.


5) A Media Matters Writer With a Jewish Problem Claims Glenn Beck Has a Jewish Problem Joining Uygur in claiming that the Fox host had a Jewish problem was progressive MJ Rosenberg, who among other jobs, is a commentator for Media Matters.

Rosenberg went after Beck in an article where he tried to relate the tragic shooting of Gabrielle Giffords to Beck's supposed Jew-hatred.
I have written about my concern that the Jewish community was not paying enough attention to Beck because he cleverly covers his tracks by professing his "love" for Israel. (Virtually all anti-Semites these days understand that expressing "love" for the Jewish state gives them a relatively free pass to bash Jews and even to use Nazi themes against them.)
Sorry Rosenberg, but its time to throw down the hypocrite card. There is no political commentator who uses anti-Semitic imagery more than Rosenberg himself. Ironically just a few weeks later, in a piece written by MJ Rosenberg and published by Media Matters, he used another crisis, this time the one in Egypt to imply that Jews ran the government, the media, and if it wasn’t for those dammed Jews, the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran would be practically “kissing cousins.” Many people have accused MJ Rosenberg of being a self-hating Jews, when you have read enough of Rosenberg's writings, it is clear he is not self-hating, in fact I believe he loves himself (although it is also clear he isn't a huge fan of those war-mongering, foreign policy running, Iranian hating, media owning Jews)


6) A Station Wagon Filled With 400 Rabbis. Just before the weekend of the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, the the Soros-affiliated Jewish Funds for Justice (JFJ) delivered a petition to Fox headquarters criticizing Glenn Beck for comments he made about George Soros back in October (the same ones Abe Foxman criticized). JFJ embellished the original Foxman allegation with a false charge that Beck used Holocaust terms to describe people he disagreed with “hundreds of times.”

Two weeks later in the January 27th edition of the Wall Street Journal was an advertisement/open letter signed by 400 Rabbis via JFJ. Repeating the libels found in the petition delivered earlier that month, the letter added a demand that Fox News Chief Roger Ailes disrespected the group because when JFJ announced they were preparing a complaint signed by four hundred Rabbis, Ailes dismissed the threat describing the group as “Left-Wing Rabbis who don’t think anybody should be able to use the word Holocaust on the air.” Ailes was completely incorrect– the group was composed of Left-Wing Rabbis who don’t think anybody but progressives should be able to use the word Holocaust on the air.

Interestingly the body of the charges seemed to have been ripped off from an article by NY Jewish Week's progressive writer James Besser, written on November 11th.

A Further investigation revealed that most of the people/or organizations whose quotes were used in the body of the JFJ letter to corroborate their slander were rebelling against the Soros effort. Out of the five quotes, three weren’t contacted prior to the use of their names, announced they disagreed with the thrust of the letter and were upset that they were included. A fourth came out and said the letter was too one sided. And, not surprisingly, the only group/person not raising an objection has multiple connections to the Dude himself.

Incredibly one of the people who was offended by their inclusion in the Jewish Funds For Justice letter was none other than the ADL's Abe Foxman, who helped to start the ball rolling back in Novemember
I was surprised to see my name and statements attributed to me used in the advertisement from Jewish Funds for Justice calling on Rupert Murdoch to "sanction" Glenn Beck for his repeated use of Holocaust and Nazi images on his Fox News program.

I want to make it clear, for the record, that I do not support this misguided campaign against Fox News, even though my name was used.

While we have said many times that Nazi comparisons are offensive and inappropriate when used for political attacks, in my view it is wrongheaded to single out only Fox News on this issue, when both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, can share equal guilt in making trivializing comparisons to the Holocaust.

Furthermore, the open letter signed by hundreds of rabbis is a trivialization in itself—bizarrely timed for release on United Nations's Holocaust Remembrance Day. At a time when Holocaust denial is rampant in much of the Arab world, where anti-Semitism remains a serious concern, and where the Iranian leader has openly declared his desire to "wipe Israel off the map," surely there are greater enemies and threats to the Jewish people than the pro-Israel stalwarts Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes and Glenn Beck.


Wow, Abe Foxman the progressive’s- progressive, jumped off the Beck is a Jew hater bandwagon. Losing Abe Foxman is the progressive equivalent of when Walter Cronkite editorialized against the Vietnam War and President Johnson said, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America." Media Matter's just lost the the Jews of "Middle America."


7) The Charges Never Made. This one doesn't really involve Glenn Beck, this one is about the real live Antisemitism or inappropriate use of Holocaust imagery ignored that should have been blasted by Media Matters, Jewish Funds for Justice and the rest of the progressive hit team instead of making false charges against Glenn Beck.

They were silent, for example, when Sugar-Daddy George Soros used the anti-Semitic canard that the Jews control the media.
“The pro-Israel lobby [a polite way of saying, those dammed Jooose] has been remarkably successful in suppressing criticism.”
They were also silent when General Merrel McPeak, former Obama for President Co-Chair, was asked during an interview why there isn’t peace in the Middle East. He answered, “New York City. Miami. We have a large vote — vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it.” (In other words those pesky Jews, who control America’s policy on the Middle East.)

And there are plenty of other examples, comments made by one-time Obama appointee Chas Freeman, Obama Campaign adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, Progressive Congressmen Moran and Ellison just to name a few—all ignored by Media Matters. They also ignore that two major progressive websites, the Daily Kos, and the Huffington Post are usually loaded with anti-Semitic references.

They were even silent when Soros wrote in his book that George Bush used Nazi-tactics. Move On, an organization seeded with some of George Soros’ money, created a TV commercial comparing George Bush to the Nazis, and many of their progressive supporters on TV made similar analogies.



Even though this seventh example does not at all mention the Fox broadcaster, it is the most important because it makes the first six even lamer. You see without number seven those other charges are just a series of half-truths, lies and disjointed logic. But the examples in this section make the charges made by Media Matters' and the other progressives more than lame but hypocritical. The fact that they make fake charges against Glenn Beck and ignore real examples of Antisemitism proves that they don't give a rat's arse about Jews, despite the fact they profess to be defenders of the Jews and the memory of the Holocaust. There is just one way to describe the charges made by Media Matters and "Spooky Dude's" Progressive hit team:



...At least its "Grade A"

Sunday, February 06, 2011

Ten Liberal Revisionist Lies about Ronald Reagan (Doug Ross)

ThinkProgress Celebrates Ronald Reagan's Birthday By Marketing Its Top Ten Lies Intended to Smear the 20th Century's Greatest President

That was quick--ThinkProgress attacks Ronald Reagan with their usual slate of laughably fraudulent fabrications

It didn't take long for the loons at ThinkRegress to begin attacking the memory of the 20th century's greatest president. The culmination of their effort -- '10 Things Conservatives Don’t Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan' -- is a list of Reagan's policies that conservatives supposedly want to hide from the general public.

Reagan was not the man conservatives claim he was. This image of Reagan as a conservative superhero is myth, created to untie the various factions of the right behind a common leader. In reality, Reagan was no conservative ideologue or flawless commander-in-chief. Reagan regularly strayed from conservative dogma — he raised taxes eleven times as president while tripling the deficit — and he often ended up on the wrong side of history, like when he vetoed an Anti-Apartheid bill.

ThinkProgress' "top 10 things conservatives rarely mention when talking about President Reagan" are as follows:

" 1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser" - Reagan suffered from overwhelming Democrat majorities in Congress when he took office. While he desperately wanted to strip away huge swaths of government (including eliminating the then newly created Department of Education), he had no choice but to compromise with the Democrats who controlled the budgetary purse-strings. When Reagan left office, the top marginal tax rate was 28% (today's it's 35% and under Bill Clinton it was nearly 40%).

"2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit by enacting a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously" - Another flat-out lie. Before his 25 percent across-the-board cut in individual income-tax rates went into effect, government receipts from individual income taxes trickled in at $244.1 billion. The year Reagan left office, they totaled $445.7 billion -- an 82 percent jump. As for the deficits, Democrats outspent every one of the nine budgets Reagan proposed but one. Further, Democrats refused to make corresponding cuts in wasteful domestic programs to offset the defense appropriations Reagan needed to combat the Soviet Union after the Carter administration's foreign policy disasters (e.g., Iran, Afghanistan, et. al.).

"3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts" - Before the full tax-relief package was passed -- against the wishes of many Democrats, by the way -- the jobless rate hit 9.6 percent. But as the cuts rippled through the economy, unemployment dropped every year after 1983, reaching a low of 5.3 percent in 1989. And tax cuts benefited minorities, too. The jobless rate among blacks plunged from 19.5 percent in 1983 to 11.4 percent in 1989.

"4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously" - this again omits the role of Congressional Democrats who controlled the purse-strings and refused to axe the programs and agencies that Reagan requested. In fact, the media portrayed Reagan as "heartless" and depicted him as "laughable and malevolent" for his attempts to strip away the federal bureaucracy. But the only way the Democrat Congress would accept a defense buildup and tax cuts was for Reagan to agree to their domestic spending agenda. In fact, the budget deficits of the 1980s made the surpluses in the 1990s possible; the balanced budget was aided by surging tax revenues from a healthy, low-tax economy and immense defense savings made possible by the fall of the Soviet Union.

"5. Reagan did little to fight a woman’s right to chose [sic]" - Reagan was adamant about ending the practice of 'abortion on demand' and proposed that legislation be drafted to do so (you can hear Reagan's 1983 address on this subject); but he "had little success in gaining its acceptance by Congress."

" 6. Reagan was a “bellicose peacenik.”" - this is sheer revisionist idiocy; Reagan believed, first and foremost, in peace through strength. He gave dozens of speeches on this topic, rebuilt the U.S. military after Carter had stripped it bare, and created the impetus for the oft-derided SDI ("Star Wars") program that has since become an essential part of U.S. national security strategy. His famous slogans on this topic were "peace through strength" and "trust but verify".

" 7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants" - The Democrat leadership in Congress promised to enact strict enforcement measures as a trade for a one-time amnesty deal. In an effort to control the border, Reagan went along with the deal. At the time (1986), the measures were marketed by Democrats as as being able to stop illegal immigration. Ted Kennedy himself sold the enforcement clauses of the law as strong enough to ensure that only a one-time amnesty would be needed. But, as is their standard practice, Democrats lied about sealing the border.

Reagan himself said, "This country has lost control of its borders. And no country can sustain that kind of position."

" 8. Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran" -Democrats launched a six-year, $40 million investigation of Reagan in a politically inspired witch-hunt. Reagan was, in fact, found guilty of absolutely nothing. Furthermore, indictments were intentionally handed down mere days before the 1992 election that pitted George H. W. Bush against Bill Clinton -- presumably to levy the maximum amount of political damage on the GOP candidate. Near the end of the investigations, The Baltimore Sun reported that a "federal trial judge in Washington dismissed Oliver North's conviction" and that "[c]riticism of Mr. Walsh's prosecution and of the law that authorized it will become more intense [because the] public has gotten precious little from his [at the time] $30 million, four-year effort".

"9. Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act" - Reagan vehemently opposed apartheid ("Apartheid is morally wrong and politically unacceptable [... the] United States cannot maintain cordial relations with [such] a government") but he did not support the approach advocated by Congress. He issued an executive order restricting trade with the Pretoria government and virtually ended inter-bank dealings. But he believed that Congress' unilateral sanctions would harm blacks most of all and eradicate all of the leverage he wanted to bring to bear on South Africa. He wanted a timetable for the elimination of apartheid laws, the release of all political prisoners (especially Nelson Mandela) and a removal of the ban on black political movements. He felt he could not negotiate with the South African government if he had nothing to trade. His 1986 speech -- "Ending Apartheid in South Africa" -- comprehensively described his plans and approach.

" 10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden" - Gee, next they'll be complaining that we had to side with the Soviets to defeat the Nazis. This sort of leftist lunacy simply rewrites history. We needed to sabotage the Soviets' efforts in Afghanistan to prevent a dramatic power-shift in the Middle East. Blaming Reagan for the Taliban and Bin Laden is like blaming Henry Ford for the problem of too many scrap tires.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Happy Birthday, Mr. President. Rest assured that the Left is just as stupid, dishonest and disingenuous as they were when you were in office.

Friday, February 04, 2011

Yes, folks. Believe it or not, I am posting an article from the Huffington Post. But it is so well written and impressive, I could not resist the opportunity.

Israel's Never Looked So Good
David Suissa

They warned us. The geniuses at Peace Now warned us. The brilliant diplomats warned us. The think tanks warned us. Even the Arab dictators warned us. For decades now, they have been warning us that if you want "peace in the Middle East," just fix the Palestinian problem. A recent variation on this theme has been: Just get the Jews to stop building apartments in East Jerusalem and Efrat. Yes, if all those Jews in the West Bank and East Jerusalem would only "freeze" their construction, then, finally, Palestinian leaders might come to the table and peace might break out.

And what would happen if peace would break out between Jews and Palestinians? Would all those furious Arabs now demonstrating on streets across the Middle East feel any better?

What bloody nonsense.

Has there ever been a greater abuse of the English language in international diplomacy than calling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the "Middle East peace process?" As if there were only two countries in the Middle East.

Even if you absolutely believe in the imperative of creating a Palestinian state, you can't tell me that the single-minded and global obsession with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the expense of the enormous ills in the rest of the Middle East hasn't been idiotic, if not criminally negligent.

While tens of millions of Arabs have been suffering for decades from brutal oppression, while gays have been tortured and writers jailed and women humiliated and dissidents killed, the world -- yes, the world -- has obsessed with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

As if Palestinians -- the same coddled victims on whom the world has spent billions and who have rejected one peace offer after another -- were the only victims in the Middle East.

As if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has anything to do with the 1,000-year-old bloody conflict between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, or the desire of brutal Arab dictators to stay in power, or the desire of Islamist radicals to bring back the Caliphate, or the economic despair of millions, or simply the absence of free speech or basic human rights throughout the Arab world.

While self-righteous Israel bashers have scrutinized every flaw in Israel's democracy -- some waxing hysterical that the Jewish democratic experiment in the world's nastiest neighborhood had turned into an embarrassment -- they kept their big mouths shut about the oppression of millions of Arabs throughout the Middle East.

They cried foul if Israeli Arabs -- who have infinitely more rights and freedoms than any Arabs in the Middle East -- had their rights compromised in any way. But if a poet were jailed in Jordan or a gay man were tortured in Egypt or a woman were stoned in Syria, all we heard was screaming silence.

Think of the ridiculous amount of media ink and diplomatic attention that has been poured onto the Israel-Palestinian conflict over the years, while much of the Arab world was suffering and smoldering, and tell me this is not criminal negligence. Do you ever recall seeing a UN resolution or an international conference in support of Middle Eastern Arabs not named Palestinians?

Of course, now that the Arab volcano has finally erupted, all those chronic Israel bashers have suddenly discovered a new cause: Freedom for the poor oppressed Arabs of the Middle East!

Imagine if, instead of putting Israel under their critical and hypocritical microscope, the world's Israel bashers had taken Israel's imperfect democratic experiment and said to the Arab world: Why don't you try to emulate the Jews?

Why don't you give equal rights to your women and gays, just like Israel does?

Why don't you give your people the same freedom of speech and freedom to vote that Israel does? And offer them the economic opportunities they would get in Israel? Why don't you treat your Jewish and Christian citizens the same way Israel treats its Arab and Christian citizens?

Why don't you study how Israel has struggled to balance religion with democracy -- a very difficult but not insurmountable task?

Why don't you teach your people that Jews are not the sons of dogs but a noble, ancient people with a 3,000-year connection to the land of Israel?

Yes, imagine if Israel bashers had spent a fraction of their energy fighting the lies of Arab dictators and defending the rights of millions of oppressed Arabs. Imagine if President Obama had taken one percent of the time he has harped on Jewish settlements to defend the democratic rights of Egyptian Arabs -- which he is suddenly doing now that the volcano has erupted.

Maybe it's just easier to beat up on a free and open society like Israel.

Well, now that the cesspool of human oppression in the Arab world has been opened for all to see, how bad is Israel's democracy looking? Don't you wish the Arab world had a modicum of Israel's civil society? Would you still be worrying about "stability in the Middle East?"

You can preach to me all you want about the great Jewish tradition of self-criticism -- which I believe in -- but right now, when I see poor Arab souls being murdered for the simple act of protesting on the street, I've never felt more proud of being a supporter of the Jewish state.