John Kerry, Phony or Fool?

For the past few weeks, I had in mind to write about the lack of self awareness of Secretary of State John F. Kerry. But as I started writing this today, I realized that many of the criticisms I have about Kerry can be blamed on the lack of direction his boss has portrayed in foreign policy. Clearly, Kerry is over his head as Secretary of State. He either doesn't understand the nuances of diplomacy, or he simply doesn't care. His charge, as SoS, is to clearly elucidate the foreign policy of the President. But there have been numerous examples of communication failure that I can't help but wonder if Obama didn't name him Secretary of State as punishment for some nefarious deed.

The first example was when he and Obama openly contradicted themselves regarding Syrian deployment of biological weapons. That took a strange twist when they couldn't find agreement as to what happened and how to deal with it. Kerry came out immediately accusing Basher Assad of gassing his own people, only to be contradicted a couple of days later by Obama. Kerry was far more threatening in his remarks and certainly more assured of the events. But Obama, as he did in Benghazi, softened his stance. All of this led to America's acquiesce to Vladimir Putin - at a great embarrassment to this country.

But the foreign policy issue I most am troubled by is how Kerry (and Obama) treat the state of Israel. Oh, Kerry talks a good game. He sounds almost believable when he recites the talking point about how America will always come to Israel's defense. But no one - whether in America or Israel - believes him. And why should they? In his almost 6 years in office, President Obama has gone out of his way to punish Israel for horrible deed of having Benjamin Netanyahu as her Prime Minister. In keeping with his policy of turning enemies into friends and friends into enemies. it seems Obama has saved his best rebuke to the only democracy in the Middle East. At first, it was Vice President Joe Biden who feigned anger over the audacity of the Israeli government to build apartments in the Jewish section of Jerusalem. The area where the buildings were to be built was not an area under any dispute, and in fact was in a section that even the UN recognized as not part of any "occupation."

But Biden (and by extension, Obama) decided t use this excuse to try and knock Bibi down a notch. However, this calculation failed and eventually led to Netanyahu's famous rebuke of Obama. After this, Biden was stowed away and didn't deal with the Middle East again. Next was Hillary Clinton's turn. However, many Israelis have long memories and remember Hillary's embrace of Suha Arafat. It was said of Hillary when she ran (and eventually won the NY Senate election) that there wasn't enough room on her head for all the faces she has. However, she did get her own digs into Bibi, when she called the Prime Minister personally and berated him for his insolence. That's what is so amazing about this relationship. For some reason, the American leaders treat Israel like they are their child - punishing, berating and even (metaphorically) spanking publicly for any perceived notion that Israel may be an independent nation. The left likes to use the excuse that Israel receives $3 billion in aid (the actual truth is that Israel receives that amount in loan guarantees, not cash). But so does Egypt and Jordan. Yet they are not treated with such disdain.

So now comes big, bad John F. Kerry. Of course, there was a reason he couldn't even beat a very beatable George W. Bush in the 2004 election. Kerry may well be the one person who thinks higher of himself than Obama thinks of himself. Kerry has and always will be a big phony. His accomplishments were always at the expense of someone else's efforts. And for all of you who like to question the intelligence of former President Bush (43), Kerry's GPA at Harvard was lower than Bush's grades at Yale. But Democrats are more interested in appearance and less in substance (that's how they can vote in Obama twice). Kerry looks the part of statesman. That's also why Joe Biden is Vice President. He was chosen because of his supposed strength in foreign affairs. However, no one looked at his foreign policy choices were. Low information voters don't need specifics, just optics. Call it the American Idolization of American politics.

Because Kerry looked the part, the left gave him respect and honor. Of course, when you scratch the surface with Kerry, there isn't a lot there. Certainly nothing overwhelmingly positive. And yet the left nominated him for President. Regardless, Israelis are no longer fooled by lofty rhetoric, which has always been modus operandi of liberal politicians. When Obama criticized Netanyahu, Israelis took notice and - unlike when Bill Clinton rebuked Bibi in 1997 - they stood by their Prime Minister. Bibi's popularity is at an all-time high, while Obama's - and by extension, Kerry's - is at an all-time low.

For the past few months, Kerry has been focusing all of his time on solving the Israel-Palestinian situation. But as anyone with half a brain (and some intellectual honesty) can attest, there isn't a viable solution at this point. Obama and Kerry keep moving the goalposts while blaming Israel for not doing enough. But of course, nothing has been demanded of the Palestinians. On the contrary, due to the feckless incompetence of the American leadership, the Palestinians know they don't have to do anything and eventually the American leadership will force it upon the Israelis. Kerry himself has caused more consternation in Israel than Abbas ever could. And he didn't do anything on purpose. It wasn't anything that was planned.

No, it was just the fallout from the incompetent leadership of Obama and Kerry. Kerry didn't really mean to threaten Israel with a new intifada. But as the top diplomat in the Obama administration, he should understand what his words mean to those who hear them. It was sheer stupidity, but something we are all coming to expect from this administration. Never before have I seen so many "corrections" made by the press secretary to "explain" what the President "meant." Liberals love to talk about Obama as the "smartest person in the room." Well, if he's so intelligent, why does he need his press secretary to come out and explain what he meant?

And this goes for John Kerry, as well. Optically, Kerry looks the part. He has the "experience" and is a "statesman." But is he really? And certainly, who says so? So far, I have not seen anything that proves to me that Kerry is anything but a fool and a charlatan. And this goes for his boss, too.

The Unfairness of it All

What chance is there really for peace to develop between the Arabs and the Israelis? I ask not to be a wise-ass, but to make a viable point. The answer depends on who you ask. On the Israeli camp, they are divided between what they hope could happen and what reality has told them won't happen. And on the Arab side, the division is between subjugation of the Jewish enemy or outright ethnic cleansing.

There are numerous truthful websites that tell the historically accurate history of the creation of the State of Israel. So repeating it all now will just take up too much time. But for a good read on Israel's supposed occupation of Palestinian land, Professor William Jacobson (from Legal Insurrection) has posted The historical fiction of Israel’s “occupation”. It's definitely a must-read.

But let's say you are new to this issue and want to know who to believe. On one hand, you can look around and see what has been going on in countries with large Muslim populations. Recent riots in Sweden, soldiers beheaded in the streets of London, civil war in Syria, Boston Marathon bombing, continued sectarian violence in Nigeria, Yemen, Iraq and Afghanistan, and nuclear ambitions in perhaps the most unstable and dangerous country in the world, Iran.

It isn't Israeli Jews that are blowing up people. It isn't Jews killing Christians at will throughout the Middle East. It isn't Israeli Jews who are perpetually angry and homicidal. You won't see a Jew saw off someone's head, or eat his heart on video.

So one one hand, one sode has proven to be less than human when it comes to getting along with the neighbors.

One of the stupidest arguments I hear from the uninformed masses (usually, it's those who are protesting for leftist causes) is that Israel is an apartheid country. Aside from these people needing a dictionary, they also need a serious civics lesson on just how Israel can be like South Africa, when the State of Israel openly allows free elections (and has numerous Arab members of the Knesset), allows for Arabs to join the military and allows Muslim women to dress as modestly as they want. In Israel, any Muslim can receive permission to worship where he wishes and can build his own Mosque, should he desire.

By contrast, Jews are not allowed to enter Saudi Arabia, nor are Churches allowed to be built. Christians in the Kingdom and not allowed to congregate, much less open a church. Of course, unlike in Saudia Arabia, Israeli and Arab women are equally allowed to drive a car - with or without a male companion.

So who is the Apartheid state?

Since the end of the 6-Day War - a war that was forced upon the Israelis when Gemal Nasser and Hafez Assad decided to mobilize on the Israeli border in preparation for an attack - Israel has been forced into negotiating away land for a promise of peace. The blueprint was created by Israeli Prome Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. For his troubles, he was soon assassinated by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. While we in the west look at Sadat as a man of peace and his death a tragedy, we no longer look at his assassins with any disgust or distrust,

Since the end of that war, Israel has made numerous concessions that eventually led to the Camp David Accords, where PLO leader Yasser Arafat was offered what he claimed to have wanted. Of course he accepted it at the ceremony. But Arafat had another plan and that was to start up a second Intafada.

If looked at closely, it would appear that the whole world is upside down. The center of this has been the Middle East for the last 50 years. Ever since Israel was victorious in the Six-Day War, she has lost consistently in the court of public opinion. While she was the new, underdog nation, Israel was the darling of the political left. But once she was forced to use her strength - to avoid annihilation - she lost that underdog status and began the left's public enemy #1.

Only when Israel concedes and gives away land  - for the scant hope for peace - does the left begrudgingly accept her legitimacy. No other nation in the world has had to face such a war of lawfulness, nor such a widespread campaign of misinformation and vicious slander. Of course, much of this is due to the fact that the Arab lands control OPEC and the majority of oil worldwide. Due to the need for cheap crude, many nations bow to the will of the Saudis and their allies (and in the case of Iran, their enemies, as long as they are Muslim). In addition, the largest bloc f nations in the UN is the Islamic bloc, which automatically gives voice to over 50 countries in their fight against the tiny Jewish nation.

The obviously solution would be for the Arab nations to accept Israel and her right to be a Jewish nation. After all, there are 22 Muslim nations and no one seems to have any issue with that. But that would mean their scapegoat would disappear. As long as they have a common enemy the blame all the world's problems on, they keep the focus off of their failed governance.

In the past 35 years - since Begin and Sadat sat together - Israel has returned the Sinai, Gaza, southern Lebanon and the governing rights of a majority of Samaria (the West Bank). Each time for the Palestinian promise of peace. And for what? Not only is there still no peace, the Palestinians still refuse to even accept the land that isn't in dispute. There is no "State of Israel" on any Palestinian map and the textbooks (that, by the way, are funded by Israel and the United States) still call for the removal of the "Zionist identity", while calling Jews the "children of apes and pigs." As long as the Arabs continue to incite their children to hate Jews and consider Israel to be illegitimate, there can not possibly be peace in the Middle East.

Sadly, while the Obama administration knows this, they continue to placate to the idea of peaceful coexistence between Israel and the Arabs. To his defense, Bush wasn't all that much better. In appearance and reputation, Bush was far more friendly to the Jewish people. But in reality, the only real difference is Obama is far weaker in stature. Bush and Obama were both friendly to the Arabs (Obama's bow and Bush's embrace of the Saudi king).

Until we have a leader in America who isn't afraid of upsetting the politically correct and (America needs you, Harry Truman!) telling the Arabs to play fair, nothing will be done to solve the Mideast problem. Israel has given about all she can give. It's clear to anyone with a brain (and without an agenda) that Abbas and the Palestinians have no desire to negotiate what they feel will eventually be given to them. In the mean time, the Arabs of Samaria and Gaza will continue to live in squalor. There's a reason no other Muslim nation took in the refugees of the 1948 and 1967 wars. By leaving them to starve in refugee camps, they continue to fester the hatred they need to delegitimize Israel.

That doesn't leave much to be hopeful. But it's certainly unfair.

Reasons To Worry

As we begin the next post 9/11 decade, I can't help but wonder what the country will look like in ten years. When 1979 turned to 1980, the world was quite dangerous. Jimmy Carter's feckless foreign policy decisions led to the rise of a fundamentalist Iran, there were anti-American riots on the Arab streets, the Soviets felt they had a comrade in arms, or at least a weak opponent in the White House and the economy, like much of the country, was in a malaise.

I was 17 going on 18 and yet, at no point did I worry that my country wouldn't be around for the next 10 years. While Hollywood tried to relive the scary days of the Cuban Missile Crises - by airing the movie "The Day After," somehow we knew America would overcome this. Thankfully, we had the intelligence and foresight to elect Ronald Reagan to replace the incredibly shrinking James Earl Carter before the year ended.

But what about now? Once again, we are faced with Islamic revolutions that were at least stoked, if not completely tolerated (even wanted) by a feckless, incompetent Commander-in-Chief. We once again have an American embassy under attack in an Islamic-ruled country (that was once our ally, if not for the President's weak foreign policies). Once again, we are being ridiculed by an ever menacing Russia - while no longer a Soviet threat, Russia is once again raising its fist. Once again, the economy is in the tank and once again, gas prices are outrageous and crippling us. And this time, we have to add the enormous financial debt we owe to the Chinese.

Faced with all of these very serious issues, once again a malaise has surrounded us. But, unlike 1980, many Americans are hiding from these problems. Listening to the Democratic National Convention, you would think the worst thing we have to deal with as a nation is whether or not 31-year-old college students get their contraception paid for by the taxpayer. Or whether or not peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are bringing us back to Jim Crow.

But just yesterday, there were three very disturbing stories that barely made the mainstream press.

The first was this from the Government Accountability Institute:

The Government Accountability Institute, a new conservative investigative research organization, examined President Obama’s schedule from the day he took office until mid-June 2012, to see how often he attended his Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) — the meeting at which he is briefed on the most critical intelligence threats to the country. During his first 1,225 days in office, Obama attended his PDB just 536 times — or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent — falling to just over 38 percent.

Also from the article:

This isn’t the first time a Government Accountability Institute study has caused controversy. In July, a GAI analysis of President Obama’s calendar found that the president has spent just 412 hours in economic meetings of any kind throughout his presidency versus the over 600 hours he’s spent golfing.

It's bad enough that the President has a serious flaw in his priorities. But to see a report like this, while the economy is in it's worst condition since the Great Depression and while the Arab street is on fire and hoping to burn us down is simply maddening.

Yet the media wants us to believe that Mitt Romney's dog is a far more vital story.

Here is the second story...

Protesters Storm US Embassy In Egypt, Tear Apart American Flag

Can someone say "asleep at the wheel?" Just like 1979, when Jimmy Carter "welcomed" a new regime in Iran (in reality, he simply turned the other way and abandoned his ally, which showed the Islamists America was a "paper tiger). Of course, this gross negligence by our government has led to thousands and thousands of deaths and a reign of terror not seen since the '40s. Will Egypt turn into Iran II? At this point, unless Iran is successful and acquires and detonates a nuclear bomb (which changes everything), I would say it's inevitable. But like Jimmy Carter all those years ago, our President was either too incompetent to see the obvious, or else this was exactly the outcome he desired - which is far more insidious and dangerous. I tend to believe it's incompetence. After all, we elected a man without a shred of experience who talked a good game, but was really just an empty suit. Joe Biden famously said that in the near future, a crisis will arise that would "test the mettle" of Obama. He was right. Sadly, Joe was wrong as to the success of such a crisis.

The third story has not gotten the media play it deserves. However, that's mostly because it puts Obama is a poor light and the MSM would never do that, if it can avoid it.

U.S. rejects Netanyahu meeting request

Go ahead and find me another time in our recent history where an ally was facing imminent war and the President of the United States can not find the time to meet with the ally's leader.

You can't. Some will say that Obama is rejecting Bibi because of the comments the Prime Minister made regarding making a red line in the sand to stop Iran. If this is the reason, it shows an unbelievable amount of petulance and immaturity on the part of the US President. If this is the reason, what kind of man does that make Obama? As leader of the United States, the President MUST stand above such petty behavior. But sadly, this has become the norm for this President. His loathing of the Israeli Prime Minister has long been known. But for Israel, the Iran issue is a matter of life and death. For our President to treat this situation like gum on the bottom of his show is the most visual reason I can show you as to the incompetence, petulance and arrogance of the man-child in the oval office.

And what if that isn't the reason? What else could it be? The Obama people claim he simply can not fit meeting Netanyahu on his schedule. Would that be the schedule that sees his miss 60-70% of his daily intelligence briefings? Or the less that 45 minutes a day on his economic briefings? Is this the schedule that has him playing over 100 rounds of golf and taking exotic vacations? Or is this the busy schedule that has him attending over 300 fundraisers over the past 2 years?

The office of the President of the United States was never this much of a joke under Jimmy Carter. While Carter was clearly incompetent, he at least took the office and the oath seriously. From Day One, Obama promised to "fundamentally transform" the country. Sadly, a majority of Americans either didn't, or couldn't believe what those words meant.

We have less than two months to see he isn't allowed to continue. Please vote wisely.

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.

My blood is still boiling over the shameful treatment Israel has received this past week by the Obama administration. I could go on and on about the hypocritical, two-faced attitudes of his minions all day. But it won't make one bit of difference. President Obama is proving that he is far more interested in sucking up to our enemies, than staying steadfast of our support of our allies.

Unfortunately, this reminds me so much of how Jimmy Carter handled foreign affairs. Carter did not understand that appeasement will not work with those who have no interest in peace. Clinton was fooled by this as well, when he pushed the Oslo debacle (but he had a lot of help from the Israeli left). Obama seems to suffer from the same delusions regarding how peace is made. As we've seen by his push on health care legislation, Obama feels that he can buy his way to victory.

That may work for Mary Landrieu, or Ben Nelson. But it will not, and has never, worked against someone committed to your destruction. Every carrot Obama places is met with derision because he does not grasp the fact that in the Arab world, it is a sign of weakness. This was the case with Carter, as well.

But the main difference between Carter and Obama is that Jimmy never felt he was bigger than the country. Jimmy Carter may have been a lot of things (antisemitic, incompetent), but he took the constitution - as well as the will of the people - seriously. Obama, on the other hand, has made it clear - in words and deeds - that the constitution is faulty and needing a fundamental change. Scary.

Anyway, here is an outstanding article, written by the great Steven Plaut, that I felt should be shared:

To Obama: No You Can't (give the Savages Jerusalem)!!!

By Steven Plaut

No sooner did the Obama Administration denounce Israel for its building activities in Jerusalem when hordes of violent Palestinian thugs took to the streets of holy Jerusalem. As always, the Arabs show the world how sacred Jerusalem is to them by filling it with violence. They rioted to demand that Jews be prohibited from opening a synagogue that had been destroyed by Arab troops, a synagogue located smack in the middle of the Jewish Quarter in an area having no theological significance for Moslems. Was it a coincidence that the Arab riots followed so closely the Obaman bile hurled against Israel? Well, if you believe that, I have a nice bridge I'd like to sell you that goes into Brooklyn.

Vice President Biden, who sometimes likes to call himself "Zionist Joe," had trouble containing his rage at the Jews. On an official state visit to Israel, his Kodak moments were interrupted when an Israeli official announced that Israel has plans to build a lot of new housing in East Jerusalem. The Vice President was aghast at the chutzpah. Secretary of State Clinton issued a series of shrill verbal attacks against Israel. Talk about a "disproportionate response!"

How dare the Jews construct housing in their own capital? Just because Washington builds housing in the District of Columbia without asking its allies for permission does not mean that the Israelis can build the same way in THEIR capital! Don't those Israelis realize that the United States has plans to transfer East Jerusalem to the terrorists of the Palestinian Authority or its Hamas overlords?

To put the Obama Administration's temper tantrum over Jerusalem into perspective, one has to try to imagine the following scenario:

Try to imagine the allies of the United States condemning the displacement of the Japanese population in Guam shortly after Guam was liberated by the United States in 1944. Guam, after all, had been conquered fair and square by the Imperial Japanese military the day after the attacks on Pearl Harbor. Japanese troops and civilians had lived in Guam throughout most of the war. The American presence there, which was eradicated on December 8, 1940, was itself of recent and dubious creation. The United States became occupier of Guam only in 1898 as part of the Treaty of Paris ending the Spanish-American War. The Yanks then built a series of settlements on the island.

Now try to imagine the Allies of the United States hectoring and condemning America about displacing the Japanese already living on Guam after 1944, replacing them forcibly with American citizens. How dare the Americans move their own civilians into homes they legally own?

If you can imagine all that, you will have a pretty good understanding of the Obama-Biden assault against Israel for building homes for Jews in Jerusalem. Many of these homes are within inches of Mount Scopus and the Old City of Jerusalem.

The State Department is soiling itself in rage over Israel allowing Jews to move into the Simon the Righteous neighborhood in East Jerusalem, also known as Sheikh Jarrah. You may recall that Sheikh Jarrah was where a horrific massacre of a convoy of Jewish medical personnel headed for the Hadassah Hospital on Mt. Scopus took place in 1948. 79 Jews were murdered in cold blood and their bodies mutilated. When East Jerusalem was liberated from its illegal Jordanian occupiers in 1967, Sheikh Jarrah should have been emptied entirely of its murderous residents and turned over to the families of the victims of that massacre as compensation!

East Jerusalem was made Judenrein, with its Jews ethnically cleansed, in Israel's 1948-49 war of independence. Before that Jews had lived in East Jerusalem almost without interruption since King David conquered it. Those attacking Israel are insisting that she leave that crime of ethnic cleansing in tact, un-redressed. Their demands are equivalent to demands upon the United States to leave the Japanese presence on Guam unchanged after 1944.

To put this another way, let's ask just why the State Department objects to Jews moving into homes in East Jerusalem, homes they legally and legitimately own. The answer is that the State Department plans to force Israel to turn East Jerusalem over to some future Palestinian terror state, and that will be harder to do if East Jerusalem is filled up with Jews. But that is precisely the reason why Israel SHOULD build housing in East Jerusalem!!

If Bibi Netanyahu had any sense of Jewish history or an ounce of courage and self-respect, he would answer the complaints coming from Clinton and the Biden delegation thus: "We understand that you want East Jerusalem preserved as an area unpolluted by the presence of Jews so that it can be transferred in the future to the terrorists. And that is why we refuse to agree to your calls for a building freeze anywhere in Jerusalem. We will build like the dickens to prevent anyone transferring Jerusalem to any 'Palestinians' from any political movement. And if the result of that is for the war between Israel and the Arabs to continue for another thousand years, then we choose that over giving up Jerusalem."

Israel's position should be simply that if the Arab world refuses to come to terms and make peace with an Israel controlling all of Jerusalem, then we do not believe that they will come to terms or make peace with any Israel that has relinquished Jerusalem either. The Arabs can threaten Israel all they want about the dire consequences if Israel refuses to turn Jerusalem over to them. Israel's response should be, "You can't have it, period."

And if there were any doubts as to who has the moral and legal right to control East Jerusalem, they were removed in the violent rioting by Palestinians over the opening of the rebuilt Hurva synagogue this week. Tradition has it that it stands on the site of synagogues going back to the second century AD. One synagogue standing there in the 1700s was destroyed, leading to the nickname of the site, the "Hurva" or "the Destruction." A later synagogue was constructed on the site in 1864. It remained there until Jordanian soldiers, who were illegally holding the Old City after 1948, demolished it. Yes, those same soldiers of the Kingdom of Jordan, which is so often proclaimed moderate and peace seeking, carried out unprecedented crimes against humanity, by systematically demolishing almost all the Jewish shrines in the Old City.

Under Arab rule (by Jordan), the religious shrines of Jerusalem were systematically demolished, profaned and violated. Under Israeli rule, every religious group is free to practice its religion in Jerusalem and its shrines are protected. End of story. The Arabs forfeited any moral claims they might have once had to govern the city when they trashed the Jewish shrines of the city. Any questions?

The Hurva synagogue is nowhere near the Mosque of al-Aqsa or any other Islamic shrines in Jerusalem. It is located close to the Ramban or Nachmanides synagogue, which was converted by the pro-Nazi Grand Mufti into a mosque in 1948 and used as a factory under the illegal Jordanian occupation. The Arabs have absolutely no legitimate claims to the site. Indeed, the reign of intentional destruction carried out by Jordan after 1948 should nullify altogether once and for all any claims the Arab world has to East Jerusalem.

If the Arabs take to violence when Jews open a synagogue, then there is only one conclusion that Israel can draw: there is nothing to negotiate with these savages. The only way to respond to their violent opposition towards Israel building in Jerusalem is with disproportionate force!

I found this over at Atlas Shrugged. This is perhaps the most elegant response I've yet heard to the honor bestowed to President Obama. Nidra Poller is an American writer and journalist who has lived in Paris since 1972 and a devout friend of Israel.*

YES VIRGINIA, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA DESERVES HIS NOBEL-PEACE-PRIZE

Paris 9 October 2009

Nidra Poller

Surprised? Shocked? Outraged? Not me. I’m delighted to see that the Nobel-Peace-Prize has been awarded to the person who most richly deserves it. Not only has he made gigantic efforts to promote Nobel-Peace in his nine short months in office but as president of the residually powerful United States of America he has the superforce to impose Nobel-style peace.

President and Nobel Prince of Peace Obama is not naïve, inept, inexperienced, or wet behind the ears. He is practicing what he preached. He has already fulfilled more promises than most voters ever suspected were being made. And the way things are going, only a miracle will keep him from delivering on the rest.

Bat Ye’or teaches us the meaning of peace in our times, the peace of dhimmitude, the peace that Nobel Norwegians have dutifully honored. It is the peace of convert or die…or hang in by the skin of your teeth. When the heads have been severed from the stiff necks that refuse Islam, when the converted have been folded into the prostrate masses of the ummah, the dhimmis hand over the keys to their granges, their wives and children, their hearts and minds, their lands and dwellings in exchange for a fragile peace requiring endless sacrifice and constant restraint.

This is the peace of dhimmitude, this is the peace Nobelly rewarded in…uhhh…Oslo, right? And B Hussein O is the most deserving laureate. On the very day the prize was announced, forty people were killed in a jihad attack in Peshawar Pakistan. Do you remember, way back when, during the campaign, he narrowed his eyes and said Iraq’s a distraction, let me get my hands on the trigger and I’ll take care of Pakistan. There you have it. A promise keeper of the first order. Iraq was also a distraction from Afghanistan. So mister Taliban tally your bananas, we’ve got other fish to fry, do your jihad thing and we’ll lower our eyes, peace be upon you.

President Obama’s Cairo speech alone earned him enough points to get this prize hands down. His bow to the king of Saudi Arabia. His consistent snubbing of European leaders. His betrayal of Poland and the Czech Republic. His outstretched hand that reaches all the way to Iran’s nuclear sites and protects them from rain, hail, and Israel. His betrayal of Persians yearning for democracy. His reluctance to look into McChrystal’s ball and find some kind of half way plausible strategy for the overseas contingency whatchamegig in Afghanistan.

Am I being coy? Why haven’t I mentioned his master plan for the nuclear disarmament of… Israel!

Leaving the best for last. Even if he had not done all of the above, dayenu, he would be worthy of being hoisted on high in the Nobel firmament because he has declared war on Jewish construction in choice neighborhoods of al Quds and wannabe Palestine. Donche know, if you want peace be prepared to make war. And if you want the peace of jihad, make war on the Jews. Point your finger at them like a smoking gun. Sock it to ‘em like a latter day koranic saint. Grab them by the scruff of the neck and scold them for all the world to see. Sic ‘em with Goldstone, saddle them with Abbas, and send them to bed without dinner and ammunition. They wanted planes to fight to win? Stop the program, cancel the contracts, and if they holler strangle them with peace. Play footsy with Hamas, set up a mahjong date with Ahmadinejad, make cuddly eyes at Assad, and secretly decorate the private quarters of the White House with shahid posters, who would dare to protest?

Did you hear the latest? Anonymous sources have leaked to the press a flood of indignation from the peaceful Obama to you know who in the holy land. Aha! You thought he was fed up because his moderate ally Abu Mazen has reverted to PLO same o same o? Stirring up trouble on the Temple Mount because a bunch of French tourists got in the way of some irate Palestinian rocks? Which naturally led the Palestinians to go on a rampage in the narrow lanes of the Old City. How can President Obama call for the creation of a Palestinian state the day after tomorrow when his protégés are rousing a billion and a half Muslims to protect al Aqsa…from French tourists?

No. That’s not why the Nobelly anointed young man is indignant. He is pissed off because Israelis are badmouthing him. Big shots and little guys in the street and on the beach, officials and cab drivers and housewives and left wing columnists are criticizing him.

Watch out. Even a Nobel-Peace-Prizer can lose his temper and explode. But then, who would blame him? What’s more dangerous for world peace, a flock of Taliban or a gaggle of chuzpadike Israelis?

Hail to the Chief for reaching out to the Taliban and forgiving them for he knows not what they do, reaching out to the Muslim Brotherhood in all its forms and machinations, reaching out to the democratically elected Ahmadinejad and drawing a veil over the rape of the innocents, reaching out to Putin over the half dead body of Georgia…and trying to close Gitmo if only the jack-in-the-box would sit down and shut up.

And if he manages to push his health care revolution bill down US throats, they’ll give him the Nobel Prize for Medicine next year. On the other hand, if he can maintain double digit unemployment and bring the dollar down to parity with the yuan he could outdistance Mugabe for the Nobel Prize for Economics.

A Nobel Prize to the wise is sufficient: when you hear the word “peace” praise the lord and pass the ammunition.

*This blog post was composed on Friday and forward-posted for Sunday.

Link Extravaganza

Steven Crowder does it again! While I know this is just a small example, does anyone really think this is not indicative of the absolute destructive power of liberalism - keeping in mind the liberal monopoly of the American education system?



Here is another excellent example of the arrogance of the Left -- Steven Chu: Americans Are Like ‘Teenage Kids’ When It Comes to Energy

And here is an example of when liberalism goes up against liberalism -- Arlington: Race a Factor in HOT Lanes

Obviously, the writer never drove in Texas, where you can't go 100 feet without seeing Mexican driving a pickup with 5-10 people in the flatbed. Ok, I know that was a stereotype. But the article is so utterly absurd all I can do is make fun of it.

It's no surprise that this little tidbit didn't make any mainstream news shows (aside from FOX of course). But regardless, Brzezinski is one of Obama's top foreign affairs advisers and this simply is very chilling: -- Zbig Brzezinski: Shoot Down Israeli Planes if They Attack Iran

Who are the racists now? -- Tucson schools create race-based system of discipline

Here is something I posted on Facebook earlier, but it really can not be repeated enough: The United States of America, circa 2009 -- Bath Time Photos Prompt Child Porn Allegations

That's something I really can't blame Obama about. However, the government's need to meddle into every little part of our lives has caused us to all become criminals and guilty until proven innocent. Forget for a moment what this is doing to the parents. Imagine what taking these kids out of their house and separating them from their folks has done to the children!

In a Liberal's Utopia, the parents are insignificant anyway. According to the gospel of the Left, it is the "village" and the government representatives (read: the public school system, the social service agencies) who know best.

Yeah, yeah, I've heard the horror stories that are few and far between. But you know what? For every truly bad parent out there, there are an equal amount of incompetent, unqualified and yes, even criminally negligent government representatives.

Sometimes, the cure is equal to, or even worse than the illness. It makes no sense to take the antidote if it does nothing AND causes you to go broke. But of course, as long as these "do-gooders" are doing something and feeling good about it, why stop?

It really is time to stop doing things for the sake of doing things. Especially when they make things far, far worse.

Lastly, here is an excellent post by my friend, Robert Avrech, that he posted on his site today -- The Jewish Jew Haters

Israel's self-defeating, anti-religious tendencies no longer surprise me. When Israel was founded in 1948, although created out of a Zionist ideal and not a religious one, the country once again became a homeland for the Jewish religion. Many, if not all, Jews believed that it was the will of G-d that brought the Jews home after almost 2000 years in exile.

This idea hit its zenith upon the blowing of the shofar at the Western Wall when the Temple Mount was recaptured during the Six-day war in 1967.

Since then, however, it seems that everything the Israeli government has done since has been with an anti-religious zeal that mocks the faith of the Jews. I'm not saying that Israel should be a theocracy, but just because it is a democracy, it can still reflect the values of the overwhelming majority of it's people. Israel is not the United States. The history of this country is vastly different than that of Israel, whose people had just come out of the Holocaust.

Today's news just struck me in the heart. According to the Jerusalem Post, the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan is planning to erect a fifth minaret on the Temple Mount. I know most people today are ignorant in regards to the Mount, so just to update:

The Temple Mount is the site where Abraham offered Isaac as a sacrifice. It is where G-d instructed that the holy Temple be built (both times). It is also to where each Jew faces as he prays. Furthermore, it is considered the absolutely most sacred spot in Judaism (Boro Park be darned).

I mention that because followers of Islam have increasingly attempted to remove any and all traces of Jewish history from it. There propaganda techniques have been quite successful and have caused a lot of ignorance worldwide to flourish.

So, it was with an unbelievable amount of chutzpah that after securing Israel's control over the most holy Jewish site, that the government would turn around and relinquish control of it to the Muslim-controlled Waqf.

Because of the unquestionably stupid, shortsighted and traitorous act, the Jewish people must sit idly by as the Mount becomes even more settled by the "religion of peace". No wonder the Arabs believe us to be weak. The Islamofacists won't even allow a non-Muslim to enter Mecca. But not only do we allow Muslims access to our holiest place, we hand them over the deed!!!

To me, it appears that the Arabs no longer need to fight wars against the Jews. We seem intent on committing religious suicide all on our own. As far as I'm concerned, Israel has truly lost her way. America is slowly going down that same path. Clearly, it is happening throughout Europe and soon it will happen here in the States.

I'm not saying this because I think the Democrats are leading us there (which I believe they are). No, that really goes without saying. But even the current administration is showing signs of weakness that have given the liberals hope. It amazes me that the President has forgotten the reasons why he won the 2004 election. He should stop for a minute and learn from Israel's mistakes. Americans really don't care about labels (Democrat, Republican). They just want someone they can trust to keep them safe and secure. They want someone who will lead when necessary and get out of the way at other times. Americans certainly don't want to be led by those who are perceived as weak on defense and they don't want to be told what to do by rich out-of touch politicians. Americans want fairness in race, religion and business and do not want to be subjugated by unelected judges who have spent very little time in the "real" world.

Okay, enough of my soapbox.

I love Israel. As a nation and as a people. Watching it slowly crumbling is just agonizing.