> US politicians, the media and the Hurricane Irene apocalypse that never was
For the television reporter, clad in his red cagoule emblazoned with the CNN logo, it was a dramatic on-air moment, broadcasting live from Long Island, New York during a hurricane that threatened Manhattan.
By Toby Harnden
"We are in, right, now...the right eye wall, no doubt about that...there you see the surf," he said breathlessly. "That tells a story right there."
Stumbling and apparently buffeted by ferocious gusts winds, he took shelter next to a building. "This is our protection from the wind," he explained. 'It's been truly remarkable to watch the power of the ocean here."
The surf may have told a story but so too did the sight behind the reporter of people chatting and ambling along the sea front. There was a man in a t-shirt, a woman waving her arms and then walking backwards. Then a bicycle glided past.
Across the screen, the "Break News: Irene Batters Long Island" caption was replaced by an order from the Federal Emergency Management Agency: "Stay inside, stay safe."
The image summed up Hurricane Irene - the media and the United States federal government trying to live up to their own doom-laden warnings and predictions while a sizable number of ordinary Americans just carried on as normal.
There was almost palpable disappointment among the TV big guns rolled out for the occasion when Irene was downgraded to a mere 'tropical storm". In New York city, CNN's Anderson Cooper, more usually seen in a tight t-shirt in a famine or war zone, was clad in what one wag dubbed "disaster casual".
His face fell and he was briefly silent when a weatherwoman told him that the rain was not going to get any worse. "Wow, because this isn't so bad," he said. "It's an annoying rain but it isn't even a sideways rain."
Then came the press conferences from the politicians, with Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey stating that his evacuation of the Jersey Shore was "a pre-emptive measure that I am confident saved lives".
Janet Napolitano, who, like the TV reporters was still trying to milk the event for all it was worth, declared that "with the evacuations and other precautions taken we have dramatically decreased the risk to life".
The truth is that the dire warning beforehand suited both politicians and journalists. Just as with the minor earthquake that shook the east coast last week causing no loss of life and virtually no damage, Irene became a huge story because it was where the media lived.
For politicians, Irene was a chance to either make amends or appear in control. The White House sent out 25 emails about Irene on Saturday alone.
There were photographs of President Barack Obama touring disaster centres. With his poll ratings plummeting, Mr Obama needed to project an aura of seriousness and command. He was all too aware that the political fortunes of his predecessor George W. Bush never recovered after the Hurricane Katrina in 2005, The press mostly reported the message the White House had carefully crafted: "Obama takes charge" read the headline of one wire service story.
At the state level, Irene was a chance for political redemption. Mr Christie had been lambasted a few months ago for taking a holiday during one of the worst snow storms in New Jersey history.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York, who ordered a mandatory evacuation of residents in low-lying areas during Irene that thousands ignored, had been widely criticised for inadequate clean-up plans during the same blizzards.
There was some loss of life during Irene, though significantly less than during dozens of other weather events across the US this year.
Preparation for the worst-case scenario makes sense and could have saved hundreds during Katrina. But the worst-case scenario was largely portrayed as inevitable.
The media and politicians enjoy a symbiotic relationship during possible impending disasters. The resultant perfect storm of hype over Irene runs the risk of making Americans even more like to ignore warnings in the future.
By lunchtime on Sunday, the sun was peeking through over New York. The TV anchors were expressing their relief at the good news that the east coast had "dodged a bullet" and Irene had not been the apocalypse they had predicted.
Perhaps it would be a bit too much to hope that they and certain politicians felt a little sheepish too.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Sunday, August 28, 2011
PICKET: Obama's illegal uncle arrested; 'Uncle Omar' almost hits cop car, tries to call White House
*Clarification: Onyango Obama nearly hit the police car. He did not actually hit it, according to police reports.
-------
A number of media outlets have already reported that an illegal immigrant from Kenya by the name of Onyango Obama, 67, was arrested last week on Wednesday after he nearly rammed his SUV into a police car in Framingham, Massachusetts.
He was later charged with DUI among other violations. I spoke to Framingham Public Information Officer Lieutenant Delaney who told me that when Onyango Obama was asked at booking if he wanted to make a telephone call to arrange for bail, the Kenyan immigrant replied: "I think I will call the White House."
It should be noted that the Times of London, highlighted an Onyango Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign, when the British daily found President Barack Obama's “Aunt Zeituni” living in Boston illegally.:
Dreams From My Father was first published in 1995, and the story of how Mr Obama returned to Kenya in 1988 to trace his roots has become the cornerstone of his political biography. Yet the US media appears to have overlooked the passage indicating that at least one relative of Mr Obama’s had moved to America and might still be there.
Two thirds of the way through the book Mr Obama’s half-sister talked about Africans who had emigrated to the West and were never heard of again, “like our Uncle Omar, in Boston . . . They’ve been lost, you see”.
A few pages later Mr Obama meets his step-grandmother, Sarah, for the first time in the village of Kogelo. On the walls of her hut are photographs of Omar, “the uncle who had left for America 25 years ago and never came back”. Touchingly, she asks the future presidential candidate if he has any news of Omar, her son and Mr Obama’s half-uncle.
The article continues:
This triggered a six-week search, one that would lead eventually to Boston and to Aunt Zeituni. Public record searches found traces of O. Onyango Obama, Uncle Omar’s real name, in Boston. A friend and a former landlady said that he now uses the name Obama Onyango.
In the course of searching for Uncle Omar The Times found a Zeituni Onyango, who also played a prominent part in Mr Obama’s book.
In the memoir Auntie Zeituni, Uncle Omar’s sister, explained the family’s complex family tree to the future presidential candidate, introduced him to other relatives and fed him a herbal remedy for an upset stomach.
Also, a wikipedia page about the president's family that has not been edited since August 2 mentions Uncle Omar:
Omar ObamaHalf-uncle of Barack Obama,[126] born on June 3, 1944 in Nyang’oma Kogelo. Oldest son of Onyango and Sarah Obama, resides in Boston, Massachusetts.
The daily log from the Framingham Police Department shows the Onyango Obama that was arrested last week in Framingham, a Boston suburb, has the birth date of June 3, 1944.
Metrowest Daily first reported Onyango Obama's arrest:
After the near crash, Onyango Obama, 67, told Officer Val Krishtal that Krishtal should have yielded to his Mitsubishi SUV, according to a report filed yesterday in Framingham District Court.
Krishtal said he and another driver had to slam on their brakes to avoid hitting the SUV, which rolled through a stop sign and took a quick left turn.
Obama said he doubted the officer slammed on his brakes because he did not hear the tires squeal, the report says.
Krishtal said he was on Waverly Street headed toward South Street when his police car was cut off. Krishtal pulled the SUV over around 7:10 p.m.
Obama failed several field sobriety tests and was arrested. At the police station, Obama failed a Breathalyzer test, registering .14. The state legal limit is .08.
Obama was charged with driving under the influence of liquor and driving to endanger. He was also cited for not using a turn signal.
According to article, federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement has warrant for his arrest and ICE previously ordered him to be deported back to Kenya. In the meantime, a judge has not set bail on the driving charges but ordered that he be held on the ICE warrant.
-------
A number of media outlets have already reported that an illegal immigrant from Kenya by the name of Onyango Obama, 67, was arrested last week on Wednesday after he nearly rammed his SUV into a police car in Framingham, Massachusetts.
He was later charged with DUI among other violations. I spoke to Framingham Public Information Officer Lieutenant Delaney who told me that when Onyango Obama was asked at booking if he wanted to make a telephone call to arrange for bail, the Kenyan immigrant replied: "I think I will call the White House."
It should be noted that the Times of London, highlighted an Onyango Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign, when the British daily found President Barack Obama's “Aunt Zeituni” living in Boston illegally.:
Dreams From My Father was first published in 1995, and the story of how Mr Obama returned to Kenya in 1988 to trace his roots has become the cornerstone of his political biography. Yet the US media appears to have overlooked the passage indicating that at least one relative of Mr Obama’s had moved to America and might still be there.
Two thirds of the way through the book Mr Obama’s half-sister talked about Africans who had emigrated to the West and were never heard of again, “like our Uncle Omar, in Boston . . . They’ve been lost, you see”.
A few pages later Mr Obama meets his step-grandmother, Sarah, for the first time in the village of Kogelo. On the walls of her hut are photographs of Omar, “the uncle who had left for America 25 years ago and never came back”. Touchingly, she asks the future presidential candidate if he has any news of Omar, her son and Mr Obama’s half-uncle.
The article continues:
This triggered a six-week search, one that would lead eventually to Boston and to Aunt Zeituni. Public record searches found traces of O. Onyango Obama, Uncle Omar’s real name, in Boston. A friend and a former landlady said that he now uses the name Obama Onyango.
In the course of searching for Uncle Omar The Times found a Zeituni Onyango, who also played a prominent part in Mr Obama’s book.
In the memoir Auntie Zeituni, Uncle Omar’s sister, explained the family’s complex family tree to the future presidential candidate, introduced him to other relatives and fed him a herbal remedy for an upset stomach.
Also, a wikipedia page about the president's family that has not been edited since August 2 mentions Uncle Omar:
Omar ObamaHalf-uncle of Barack Obama,[126] born on June 3, 1944 in Nyang’oma Kogelo. Oldest son of Onyango and Sarah Obama, resides in Boston, Massachusetts.
The daily log from the Framingham Police Department shows the Onyango Obama that was arrested last week in Framingham, a Boston suburb, has the birth date of June 3, 1944.
Metrowest Daily first reported Onyango Obama's arrest:
After the near crash, Onyango Obama, 67, told Officer Val Krishtal that Krishtal should have yielded to his Mitsubishi SUV, according to a report filed yesterday in Framingham District Court.
Krishtal said he and another driver had to slam on their brakes to avoid hitting the SUV, which rolled through a stop sign and took a quick left turn.
Obama said he doubted the officer slammed on his brakes because he did not hear the tires squeal, the report says.
Krishtal said he was on Waverly Street headed toward South Street when his police car was cut off. Krishtal pulled the SUV over around 7:10 p.m.
Obama failed several field sobriety tests and was arrested. At the police station, Obama failed a Breathalyzer test, registering .14. The state legal limit is .08.
Obama was charged with driving under the influence of liquor and driving to endanger. He was also cited for not using a turn signal.
According to article, federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement has warrant for his arrest and ICE previously ordered him to be deported back to Kenya. In the meantime, a judge has not set bail on the driving charges but ordered that he be held on the ICE warrant.
Nancy Reagan Slips & Falls
At a political event spotlighting herself and Tea Party darling Marco Rubio, Nancy Reagan slipped, only to be caught by Rubio
Graphic ‘Sex Box’ for Swiss Kindergartners has Genitalia to Teach Kids that Sex is Pleasurable
In a move almost too shocking to comprehend, kindergarten children in Basel, Switzerland will be presented this year with fabric models of human genitalia in a “sex box” to teach them that “contacting body parts can be pleasurable.”
To make matters worse, the kit is intended to be given out to the primary school students by teachers during sex-education classes. That’s right. Sex education classes for kindergartners.
And, if that were not bad enough, the sex box allegedly uses models and recommends children massage each other or rub themselves with warm sand bags, accompanied by soft music.
What’s more, Basel education minister Christoph Eymann, from the liberal democrat party, opposed parents’ requests to exempt their children from the lessons, saying the government uses schools in order to have unrestricted access to children.
“Primary school may be the only big audience that our society has,” Eymann said. “The shared values that it teaches are very important. I would definitely like to keep this. The explanatory lesson can be portrayed in a way that doesn’t offend.”
LifeSiteNews adds:
“Children should be encouraged to develop and experience their sexuality in a pleasurable way,” Daniel Schneider, a deputy kindergarten rector for Basel who helped develop the sex ed curriculum along with experts, had said earlier this year.
He added, “It’s important that they learn to say no if they don’t want to be touched in a certain area.”
Education officials who have reportedly been flooded with over 3000 complaints from outraged parents have agreed to change the program’s name, but will do nothing to stop the materials from being distributed in schools, according to The Local.
Christoph Eymann, Basel education minister and member of the liberal democrat party (LDP), told the paper SonntagsBlick, “It was no doubt stupid to call it a ‘sex box’ – we will change that.
As if a sex box by any other name would somehow be less egregious. Eymann continued:
“But we will stick to our goal: to get across to children that sexuality is something natural. Without forcing anything upon them or taking anything away from their parents.”
Eymann said he understood that one line in the program, “touching can be enjoyed heartily,” could be misconstrued, but added, “It is not about ‘touch me, feel me.’
“We want to tell the children that there is contact that they may find pleasurable, but some that they should say ‘no’ to. Kids can unfortunately can become victims of sexual violence already at playschool age.”
Eymann, who said children should ideally be taught about sex at home thinks school officials are addressing the problem of an “oversexualised society” in which pornography is available to children via the internet.
Meanwhile, pro-family advocates in Europe have expressed outrage at the prospect of presenting five year-old children with the sex box.
Daniel Trappitsch of the Citizens for Citizens association labeled the idea a “catastrophic development.” “Sex education, sure, but it shouldn‘t been done this early and it certainly shouldn’t be obligatory,” he said.
Trappitsch’s group claims they will fight the program.
It should be noted that the “sex box” program, for as far-fetched as it sounds, could soon be en route to the U.S. — especially given the recent statement made my Health and Human Services that asserts even infants and toddlers are “sexual beings,” while members of the psychiatric community simultaneously call for the decriminalization of pedophilia.
To make matters worse, the kit is intended to be given out to the primary school students by teachers during sex-education classes. That’s right. Sex education classes for kindergartners.
And, if that were not bad enough, the sex box allegedly uses models and recommends children massage each other or rub themselves with warm sand bags, accompanied by soft music.
What’s more, Basel education minister Christoph Eymann, from the liberal democrat party, opposed parents’ requests to exempt their children from the lessons, saying the government uses schools in order to have unrestricted access to children.
“Primary school may be the only big audience that our society has,” Eymann said. “The shared values that it teaches are very important. I would definitely like to keep this. The explanatory lesson can be portrayed in a way that doesn’t offend.”
LifeSiteNews adds:
“Children should be encouraged to develop and experience their sexuality in a pleasurable way,” Daniel Schneider, a deputy kindergarten rector for Basel who helped develop the sex ed curriculum along with experts, had said earlier this year.
He added, “It’s important that they learn to say no if they don’t want to be touched in a certain area.”
Education officials who have reportedly been flooded with over 3000 complaints from outraged parents have agreed to change the program’s name, but will do nothing to stop the materials from being distributed in schools, according to The Local.
Christoph Eymann, Basel education minister and member of the liberal democrat party (LDP), told the paper SonntagsBlick, “It was no doubt stupid to call it a ‘sex box’ – we will change that.
As if a sex box by any other name would somehow be less egregious. Eymann continued:
“But we will stick to our goal: to get across to children that sexuality is something natural. Without forcing anything upon them or taking anything away from their parents.”
Eymann said he understood that one line in the program, “touching can be enjoyed heartily,” could be misconstrued, but added, “It is not about ‘touch me, feel me.’
“We want to tell the children that there is contact that they may find pleasurable, but some that they should say ‘no’ to. Kids can unfortunately can become victims of sexual violence already at playschool age.”
Eymann, who said children should ideally be taught about sex at home thinks school officials are addressing the problem of an “oversexualised society” in which pornography is available to children via the internet.
Meanwhile, pro-family advocates in Europe have expressed outrage at the prospect of presenting five year-old children with the sex box.
Daniel Trappitsch of the Citizens for Citizens association labeled the idea a “catastrophic development.” “Sex education, sure, but it shouldn‘t been done this early and it certainly shouldn’t be obligatory,” he said.
Trappitsch’s group claims they will fight the program.
It should be noted that the “sex box” program, for as far-fetched as it sounds, could soon be en route to the U.S. — especially given the recent statement made my Health and Human Services that asserts even infants and toddlers are “sexual beings,” while members of the psychiatric community simultaneously call for the decriminalization of pedophilia.
Obama and the imaginary “competency crisis”
Obama backer Mort Zuckerman has complained about Obama a number of times before. However, his latest WSJ op-ed raises the prospect of a so-called “competency crisis” — a charge we have seen elsewhere in the establishment media. It is an imaginary crisis, reflecting a cognitive dissonance that may affect the 2012 election beyond the opinion of one pundit with a touch of buyer’s remorse.
Zuckerman posits: “It is the president’s job to offer a coherent program for the twin threats of a static economy and an unsustainable explosion of our debts and deficits.” Yet in Zuckerman’s view, Obama is to be faulted for: (1) unrealistically suggesting our problems can be solved by higher taxes on millionaires and billionaires (although Mort supports such taxes); (2) failing to lay out serious tax reform proposals; (3) failing to address entitlement reform as baby boomers have begun to retire; and (4) not building alliances with businesses large or small.
Zuckerman suffers from cogintive dissonance because he backed a progressive ideologue for the presidency in 2008. In nerdspeak, Mort’s complaints are not bugs, but features of a progressive presidency. He is complaining that a shark is acting like a shark.
Moreover, Obama has been pretty competent in imposing his leftwing agenda on the country. Granted, the taxes passed during his term are not scheduled to take effect until after 2012 — and he has thus far failed at hiking taxes on the wealthy. But Obama got his massive Keynesian stimulus package, his virtual government control over our healthcare, and issued a record number of big-ticket regualtions of the remaining parts of the private sector (one EPA regulation is estimated to cost upwards of $90 billion per year). These accomplishments have done little to nothing to solve the big problems Zuckerman identified, causing his cognitive dissonance.
By itself, Zuckerman’s mental confusion is essentially irrelevant. His op-ed closes by asserting “the president will have to raise his game to win a second term, especially if the Republicans find a real candidate.” (Emphasis added.) Here, Zuckerman signals his willingness to let Obama scare him back into the Democratic fold. The 2012 GOP nominee will almost certainly be more open to tax and entitlement reform than Obama has been, but with the possible exceptions of Huntsman and Romney, doesn’t anyone who has observed Zuckerman over the years believe he would dismiss the rest of the GOP field?
However, Obama’s Zuckerman problem goes beyond Zuckerman. It goes beyond the higher-level Democrats who talk smack about him off the record.
Obama’s problem is manifest in the disillusioned hipsters who supported Obama so enthusiastically in 2008. Hipsters are not a huge demographic, but they tell us something about how serious the erosion in the youth vote is for Obama. Obama’s problem is manifest in the six-point advantage the GOP maintains with likely voters on the generic Congressional ballot.
Obama’s problem is laid bare in a recent PPP/Daily Kos/SEIU poll showing a record low in Democratic enthusiasm for 2012. Obama’s losses are not among the true believers, but among the so-called moderates (read the whole poll to see whay they’re so-called). Roughly 60% of liberals and conservatives are “very excited” to vote in 2012; only 40% of so-called moderates are.
The message of these trends is that there are many people with the Zuckerman problem who will never be asked publicly about their support for Obama. Some of them will resolve their cognitive dissonance the way Mort likely will, i.e., by deciding that the GOP nominee scares them too much. But many of them may resolve their cognitive dissonance they way Zuckerman suggests in his op-ed, i.e., by concluding Obama is incompetent — and thus not worth turning out to support in November 2012.
In 2008, Democrats had a five-point turnout advantage; in 2004, the partisan turnout was roughly equal. “Moderate” turnout was roughly 44-45% in both years, but went 60% for Obama in 2008, and only 54% for Kerry in 2004 (the difference being roughly 2% of the total). For that matter, Obama did better than Kerry with self-described conservatives. Obama’s incompetency is an illusion, but one that could prove fatal to his chances for re-election.
Zuckerman posits: “It is the president’s job to offer a coherent program for the twin threats of a static economy and an unsustainable explosion of our debts and deficits.” Yet in Zuckerman’s view, Obama is to be faulted for: (1) unrealistically suggesting our problems can be solved by higher taxes on millionaires and billionaires (although Mort supports such taxes); (2) failing to lay out serious tax reform proposals; (3) failing to address entitlement reform as baby boomers have begun to retire; and (4) not building alliances with businesses large or small.
Zuckerman suffers from cogintive dissonance because he backed a progressive ideologue for the presidency in 2008. In nerdspeak, Mort’s complaints are not bugs, but features of a progressive presidency. He is complaining that a shark is acting like a shark.
Moreover, Obama has been pretty competent in imposing his leftwing agenda on the country. Granted, the taxes passed during his term are not scheduled to take effect until after 2012 — and he has thus far failed at hiking taxes on the wealthy. But Obama got his massive Keynesian stimulus package, his virtual government control over our healthcare, and issued a record number of big-ticket regualtions of the remaining parts of the private sector (one EPA regulation is estimated to cost upwards of $90 billion per year). These accomplishments have done little to nothing to solve the big problems Zuckerman identified, causing his cognitive dissonance.
By itself, Zuckerman’s mental confusion is essentially irrelevant. His op-ed closes by asserting “the president will have to raise his game to win a second term, especially if the Republicans find a real candidate.” (Emphasis added.) Here, Zuckerman signals his willingness to let Obama scare him back into the Democratic fold. The 2012 GOP nominee will almost certainly be more open to tax and entitlement reform than Obama has been, but with the possible exceptions of Huntsman and Romney, doesn’t anyone who has observed Zuckerman over the years believe he would dismiss the rest of the GOP field?
However, Obama’s Zuckerman problem goes beyond Zuckerman. It goes beyond the higher-level Democrats who talk smack about him off the record.
Obama’s problem is manifest in the disillusioned hipsters who supported Obama so enthusiastically in 2008. Hipsters are not a huge demographic, but they tell us something about how serious the erosion in the youth vote is for Obama. Obama’s problem is manifest in the six-point advantage the GOP maintains with likely voters on the generic Congressional ballot.
Obama’s problem is laid bare in a recent PPP/Daily Kos/SEIU poll showing a record low in Democratic enthusiasm for 2012. Obama’s losses are not among the true believers, but among the so-called moderates (read the whole poll to see whay they’re so-called). Roughly 60% of liberals and conservatives are “very excited” to vote in 2012; only 40% of so-called moderates are.
The message of these trends is that there are many people with the Zuckerman problem who will never be asked publicly about their support for Obama. Some of them will resolve their cognitive dissonance the way Mort likely will, i.e., by deciding that the GOP nominee scares them too much. But many of them may resolve their cognitive dissonance they way Zuckerman suggests in his op-ed, i.e., by concluding Obama is incompetent — and thus not worth turning out to support in November 2012.
In 2008, Democrats had a five-point turnout advantage; in 2004, the partisan turnout was roughly equal. “Moderate” turnout was roughly 44-45% in both years, but went 60% for Obama in 2008, and only 54% for Kerry in 2004 (the difference being roughly 2% of the total). For that matter, Obama did better than Kerry with self-described conservatives. Obama’s incompetency is an illusion, but one that could prove fatal to his chances for re-election.
Obama’s Muslim Advisor Says Sharia Law ‘Misunderstood’
It has been used to excuse the chopping off of hands and feet, it has been used as an excuse to stone women that have been victims of rape, and it has been used as an excuse to jail women merely for wearing a pair of pants, driving a car, or smoking a cigarette, but Barack Obama’s Muslim advisor told a British TV audience that Shariah Law has just been “misunderstood.”
Obama Muslim affairs advisor Dalia Mogahed (pictured) was a guest on a London-based TV show hosted by a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahir al-Islami party (Islamic Party of Liberation), Ibtihal Bsis.
Hizb ut Tahir al-Islami seeks to eliminate western democracy and replace it with an extremist view of Islam which includes the creation of a world Islamic caliphate.
On the TV broadcast, Obama advisor Mogahed sat quiet while other guests and the host said that women should not be allowed to hold positions in government and that western democratic tradition was a “lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism.”
But worse than not speaking up to these anti-woman and anti-western sentiments was what she herself added to the conversation. Speaking on the barbaric practice of Sharia law, Mogahed said:
“I think the reason so many women support Sharia is because they have a very different understanding of sharia than the common perception in Western media.
“The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia compliance.
“The portrayal of Sharia has been oversimplified in many cases.”
I guess a tradition that turns a blind eye to the “honor” murders of teenaged girls or forces victims of rape to get her rapist’s permission to take him to court isn’t so bad in this Obama advisor’s eyes? Maybe a law that is used to hang gays until they are dead or one used to institute beatings and oppressions of people trying to practice a religion other than Islam is just “misunderstood”?
If this is the sort of extremist that Barack Obama has “advising” him it is no wonder he’s spent the last 10 months cavorting about the globe apologizing for how evil America is!
**UPDATE**
Now Dalia Mogahed is claiming she was “misled” by the TV people. The Washington Post published a piece that quotes Mogahed as still saying, “I don’t regret anything.”
She followed that with the following: “My regret is that I went on the show.”
In other words, she doesn’t regret speaking in favor of Sharia law in her TV appearance.
Obama Muslim affairs advisor Dalia Mogahed (pictured) was a guest on a London-based TV show hosted by a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahir al-Islami party (Islamic Party of Liberation), Ibtihal Bsis.
Hizb ut Tahir al-Islami seeks to eliminate western democracy and replace it with an extremist view of Islam which includes the creation of a world Islamic caliphate.
On the TV broadcast, Obama advisor Mogahed sat quiet while other guests and the host said that women should not be allowed to hold positions in government and that western democratic tradition was a “lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism.”
But worse than not speaking up to these anti-woman and anti-western sentiments was what she herself added to the conversation. Speaking on the barbaric practice of Sharia law, Mogahed said:
“I think the reason so many women support Sharia is because they have a very different understanding of sharia than the common perception in Western media.
“The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia compliance.
“The portrayal of Sharia has been oversimplified in many cases.”
I guess a tradition that turns a blind eye to the “honor” murders of teenaged girls or forces victims of rape to get her rapist’s permission to take him to court isn’t so bad in this Obama advisor’s eyes? Maybe a law that is used to hang gays until they are dead or one used to institute beatings and oppressions of people trying to practice a religion other than Islam is just “misunderstood”?
If this is the sort of extremist that Barack Obama has “advising” him it is no wonder he’s spent the last 10 months cavorting about the globe apologizing for how evil America is!
**UPDATE**
Now Dalia Mogahed is claiming she was “misled” by the TV people. The Washington Post published a piece that quotes Mogahed as still saying, “I don’t regret anything.”
She followed that with the following: “My regret is that I went on the show.”
In other words, she doesn’t regret speaking in favor of Sharia law in her TV appearance.
Czar Investigations
Article II section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that:
" the President shall nominate, an by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law."
However, President Barack Obama has been taking advantage of a recent precedent by appointing government officials who are not subject to Senate approval. These "czars" have tremendous power to regulate and control enormous parts of the American economy and government. And, as powerful as these czars are, some of them may not have even been subjected to a basic FBI background check.
This has allowed Obama to appoint several people with radical left-wing views, including one who supported the "9/11 truthers" movement (which believes the Bush administration may have been behind the 9/11 terror attacks on America) and another who called for "white people" to be removed from powerful positions in the media to make way for "people of color" and gays and voiced support for virulently anti-American Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. These czars have responsibilities that include managing America's Middle Eastern policy, "diversity," the auto industry, science, so-called climate change, "safe schools," health care and even the dispersal of funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).
Judicial Watch is concerned that some of these czar appointments raise significant constitutional questions. Our goal is to find out exactly what these czars are up to, what their missions are, and how much taxpayer money and government personnel they have at their disposal. In that effort, Judicial Watch has filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and document requests for all 41 of the czars that Obama has appointed so far. Several of these investigations have already resulted in lawsuits due to the Obama Administration's stonewalling with regard to the release of relevant documents. Judicial Watch has also been key in publicizing the connections some of Obama's czars have had to radical, racist and even communist organizations.
A complete list of Judicial Watch's coverage of Obama's czars is available.
Litigation
Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency - FOIA lawsuit for documents regarding "climate czar" Carol Browner
Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of the Treasury - FOIA lawsuit for documents regarding "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg
Judicial Watch v. Office of the Mayor of Chicago, et al. - FOIA lawsuit for documents regarding "Olympics czar" and White House Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett
Press Releases
Documents Uncovered by Judicial Watch Show Intervention by New, Controversial Federal Agency in Foreclosure Crisis Negotiation - June 16, 2011
Obama’s Executive “Pay Czar” Feinberg Received Six-Figure Salary According to Documents Uncovered by Judicial Watch - September 9, 2010
Judicial Watch Sues Treasury Department for Documents Detailing Meetings between Obama's "Pay Czar" Kenneth Feinberg and AIG - March 2, 2010
Judicial Watch Sues for Records on "Climate Czar" Carol Browner's Role in Crafting Policy - February 23, 2010
JW Obtains Documents on Obama FCC "Diversity Czar" Mark Lloyd's Official Mission, Duties and Responsibilities - November 18, 2009
JW Filed FOIA Lawsuit against Chicago Mayor Daley's Office to Obtain Records Related to Olympics Bid ("Olympics Czar" Valerie Jarrett) - November 12, 2009
Obama Administration Czars
as of April 22, 2011Afghanistan Czar Marc Grossman Intelligence Czar James R. Clapper
AIDS Czar Jeffrey Crowley IP Enforcement Czar Victoria A. Espinel
Asian Carp Czar John Goss Oil Czar Ray Mabus
Border Czar Alan Bersin Latin American Czar Arturo Valenzuela
California Water Czar David J. Hayes Manufacturing Czar Ron Bloom
Climate Czar Todd Stern Medicare/Healthcare Czar Donald M. Berwick
Consumer Czar Elizabeth Warren Middle East Peace Czar George Mitchell
Cyberspace Czar Howard Schmidt Mideast Policy/Central Region/Iran Czar Philo Dibble
Domestic Violence Czar Lynn Rosenthal Native America Affairs Czar Kimberley Teehee
Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske Performance Czar Jeffrey Zients
Economic Czar Gene Sperling Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein
Economic Czar Jeffrey Immelt Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings
Electronic Health Records Czar Dr. David Blumenthal Science Czar John Holdren
Energy & Climate Change Czar Carol Browner (resigned) Stimulus Accountability Czar Earl Devaney
Faith-Based Czar Joshua Dubois Sudan Czar J. Scott Gration
FCC Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd TARP Czar Timothy Massad
Food Safety Czar Michael Taylor Technology Czar Aneesh Chopra
Great Lakes Czar Cameron Davis Terrorism Czar John Brennan
Guantanamo Closure Czar Danny Fried Tobacco Czar Lawrence Deyton
Health Care Czar Nancy-Ann De Parle War Czar Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute
Health Foods Czar Sam Kass Weapons Czar Ashton Carter
Information Technology Czar Vivek Kundra Weapons of Mass Destruction Czar Gary Samore
Workplace Czar Chai Feldblum
" the President shall nominate, an by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law."
However, President Barack Obama has been taking advantage of a recent precedent by appointing government officials who are not subject to Senate approval. These "czars" have tremendous power to regulate and control enormous parts of the American economy and government. And, as powerful as these czars are, some of them may not have even been subjected to a basic FBI background check.
This has allowed Obama to appoint several people with radical left-wing views, including one who supported the "9/11 truthers" movement (which believes the Bush administration may have been behind the 9/11 terror attacks on America) and another who called for "white people" to be removed from powerful positions in the media to make way for "people of color" and gays and voiced support for virulently anti-American Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. These czars have responsibilities that include managing America's Middle Eastern policy, "diversity," the auto industry, science, so-called climate change, "safe schools," health care and even the dispersal of funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).
Judicial Watch is concerned that some of these czar appointments raise significant constitutional questions. Our goal is to find out exactly what these czars are up to, what their missions are, and how much taxpayer money and government personnel they have at their disposal. In that effort, Judicial Watch has filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and document requests for all 41 of the czars that Obama has appointed so far. Several of these investigations have already resulted in lawsuits due to the Obama Administration's stonewalling with regard to the release of relevant documents. Judicial Watch has also been key in publicizing the connections some of Obama's czars have had to radical, racist and even communist organizations.
A complete list of Judicial Watch's coverage of Obama's czars is available.
Litigation
Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency - FOIA lawsuit for documents regarding "climate czar" Carol Browner
Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of the Treasury - FOIA lawsuit for documents regarding "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg
Judicial Watch v. Office of the Mayor of Chicago, et al. - FOIA lawsuit for documents regarding "Olympics czar" and White House Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett
Press Releases
Documents Uncovered by Judicial Watch Show Intervention by New, Controversial Federal Agency in Foreclosure Crisis Negotiation - June 16, 2011
Obama’s Executive “Pay Czar” Feinberg Received Six-Figure Salary According to Documents Uncovered by Judicial Watch - September 9, 2010
Judicial Watch Sues Treasury Department for Documents Detailing Meetings between Obama's "Pay Czar" Kenneth Feinberg and AIG - March 2, 2010
Judicial Watch Sues for Records on "Climate Czar" Carol Browner's Role in Crafting Policy - February 23, 2010
JW Obtains Documents on Obama FCC "Diversity Czar" Mark Lloyd's Official Mission, Duties and Responsibilities - November 18, 2009
JW Filed FOIA Lawsuit against Chicago Mayor Daley's Office to Obtain Records Related to Olympics Bid ("Olympics Czar" Valerie Jarrett) - November 12, 2009
Obama Administration Czars
as of April 22, 2011Afghanistan Czar Marc Grossman Intelligence Czar James R. Clapper
AIDS Czar Jeffrey Crowley IP Enforcement Czar Victoria A. Espinel
Asian Carp Czar John Goss Oil Czar Ray Mabus
Border Czar Alan Bersin Latin American Czar Arturo Valenzuela
California Water Czar David J. Hayes Manufacturing Czar Ron Bloom
Climate Czar Todd Stern Medicare/Healthcare Czar Donald M. Berwick
Consumer Czar Elizabeth Warren Middle East Peace Czar George Mitchell
Cyberspace Czar Howard Schmidt Mideast Policy/Central Region/Iran Czar Philo Dibble
Domestic Violence Czar Lynn Rosenthal Native America Affairs Czar Kimberley Teehee
Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske Performance Czar Jeffrey Zients
Economic Czar Gene Sperling Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein
Economic Czar Jeffrey Immelt Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings
Electronic Health Records Czar Dr. David Blumenthal Science Czar John Holdren
Energy & Climate Change Czar Carol Browner (resigned) Stimulus Accountability Czar Earl Devaney
Faith-Based Czar Joshua Dubois Sudan Czar J. Scott Gration
FCC Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd TARP Czar Timothy Massad
Food Safety Czar Michael Taylor Technology Czar Aneesh Chopra
Great Lakes Czar Cameron Davis Terrorism Czar John Brennan
Guantanamo Closure Czar Danny Fried Tobacco Czar Lawrence Deyton
Health Care Czar Nancy-Ann De Parle War Czar Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute
Health Foods Czar Sam Kass Weapons Czar Ashton Carter
Information Technology Czar Vivek Kundra Weapons of Mass Destruction Czar Gary Samore
Workplace Czar Chai Feldblum
1 Mil Safety Violations Won’t Keep Mexican Trucks Out Of U.S.
Weeks before the Obama Administration starts letting Mexican cargo trucks travel deep into the U.S., the Texas Department of Public Safety reveals that, in the last few years, trucks coming from Mexico had more than 1 million safety violations.
This is hardly earth-shattering news since Mexican trucks have long failed to meet U.S. safety standards. That’s why they aren’t allowed to travel freely throughout the country, but rather in restricted zones within 25 miles of the southern border. Even within their limited boundary, they have created a huge risk to Americans’ safety, according to the Transportation Department Inspector General.
Regardless, the Obama Administration carved out a deal to allow Mexican trucks to travel freely on U.S. highways as part of a 17-year-old international trade pact known as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In a few weeks Mexican trucks will be allowed to travel into the interior of the United States, even though it could endanger American lives.
In Texas alone, 1.2 million Mexican trucks had safety violations between 2007 and 2011, according to an El Paso newspaper report that quotes official statistics from state public safety officials. Among the safety violations in trucks coming from Mexico were bad brakes, flat tires, axle problems and defective lights. During that period inspectors placed more than 30,000 trucks and 625 drivers out of service.
Federal transportation officials claim that, under the new cross-border trucking program, all Mexican vehicles will be thoroughly inspected and all must comply with rigid U.S. safety standards. The Mexican trucks, notorious for their dismal, third-world country safety standards, must also be equipped with electronic monitoring systems to keep track of drivers’ service hours.
Don’t be surprised if U.S. taxpayers get stuck with the tab. After all, earlier this year the Obama Administration paid to upgrade outdated Mexican trucks that hemorrhage illegal amounts of exhaust when they deliver merchandise near the border. Generous Uncle Sam stepped in for the sake of improving air quality on both sides of the border by replacing old mufflers on dozens of Mexican trucks at a cost of $1,600 each. U.S. truck drivers are required to have the type of converters that Mexicans are getting from the government but they must pay for theirs.
This is hardly earth-shattering news since Mexican trucks have long failed to meet U.S. safety standards. That’s why they aren’t allowed to travel freely throughout the country, but rather in restricted zones within 25 miles of the southern border. Even within their limited boundary, they have created a huge risk to Americans’ safety, according to the Transportation Department Inspector General.
Regardless, the Obama Administration carved out a deal to allow Mexican trucks to travel freely on U.S. highways as part of a 17-year-old international trade pact known as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In a few weeks Mexican trucks will be allowed to travel into the interior of the United States, even though it could endanger American lives.
In Texas alone, 1.2 million Mexican trucks had safety violations between 2007 and 2011, according to an El Paso newspaper report that quotes official statistics from state public safety officials. Among the safety violations in trucks coming from Mexico were bad brakes, flat tires, axle problems and defective lights. During that period inspectors placed more than 30,000 trucks and 625 drivers out of service.
Federal transportation officials claim that, under the new cross-border trucking program, all Mexican vehicles will be thoroughly inspected and all must comply with rigid U.S. safety standards. The Mexican trucks, notorious for their dismal, third-world country safety standards, must also be equipped with electronic monitoring systems to keep track of drivers’ service hours.
Don’t be surprised if U.S. taxpayers get stuck with the tab. After all, earlier this year the Obama Administration paid to upgrade outdated Mexican trucks that hemorrhage illegal amounts of exhaust when they deliver merchandise near the border. Generous Uncle Sam stepped in for the sake of improving air quality on both sides of the border by replacing old mufflers on dozens of Mexican trucks at a cost of $1,600 each. U.S. truck drivers are required to have the type of converters that Mexicans are getting from the government but they must pay for theirs.
Infographic: America, The Lawsuit-Happy Nation
By EconMatters
According to the latest BLS national wage estimate through May 2010, the mean annual salary for lawyers was around $129,440, which partly accounts for the fact that the U.S. has one of the highest number of lawyers per capita in the world.
Based on data from the American Bar Association, there are over 1.2 million lawyers in the United States. That's one attorney for every 254 Americans, which also makes some of the stunning statistics (and what a waste of resources) illustrated in the infographic below somewhat "logical":
15 million lawsuits will be filed in 2011 across the U.S.
A new lawsuit every 2 seconds
One lawsuit for every 12 adults
21 U.S. states are facing a medical liability crisis
$248.1 billion = the cost to the U.S. tort system (personal injury) in 2009, or $808 per person
The cost per capita of tort related lawsuits has increased 800% between 1950 to 2009
The Great Recession may have diminished the ability of lawyers to command a higher salary, but probably at the same time also has increased the likelihood of frivolous litigation, as the odds are good for some kind of settlement to avoid an even more costly trial, particularly when insurance companies are involved.
https://twitter.com/#!/mcuban/ status/107659453985329154
According to the latest BLS national wage estimate through May 2010, the mean annual salary for lawyers was around $129,440, which partly accounts for the fact that the U.S. has one of the highest number of lawyers per capita in the world.
Based on data from the American Bar Association, there are over 1.2 million lawyers in the United States. That's one attorney for every 254 Americans, which also makes some of the stunning statistics (and what a waste of resources) illustrated in the infographic below somewhat "logical":
15 million lawsuits will be filed in 2011 across the U.S.
A new lawsuit every 2 seconds
One lawsuit for every 12 adults
21 U.S. states are facing a medical liability crisis
$248.1 billion = the cost to the U.S. tort system (personal injury) in 2009, or $808 per person
The cost per capita of tort related lawsuits has increased 800% between 1950 to 2009
The Great Recession may have diminished the ability of lawyers to command a higher salary, but probably at the same time also has increased the likelihood of frivolous litigation, as the odds are good for some kind of settlement to avoid an even more costly trial, particularly when insurance companies are involved.
https://twitter.com/#!/mcuban/ status/107659453985329154
First Circuit Affirms Right to Record the Police
Posted by David Rittgers
Right to Record, a website devoted to the legal aspects of recording police officers, has the scoop. A panel of the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the right of citizens to openly record police officers.
Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting “the free discussion of governmental affairs.” Moreover, as the Court has noted, “[f]reedom of expression has particular significance with respect to government because ‘[i]t is here that the state has a special incentive to repress opposition and often wields a more effective power of suppression.’” This is particularly true of law enforcement officials, who are granted substantial discretion that may be misused to deprive individuals of their liberties. Ensuring the public’s right to gather information about their officials not only aids in the uncovering of abuses, but also may have a salutary effect on the functioning of government more generally.
Read the whole thing. It provides a great discussion of the developing legal landscape, as well as some juicy details — like the fact that the attorney defending the statute for Massachusetts wrote her student note about how the Massachusetts wiretapping law is unconstitutional.
This decision is a big deal. The case comes from Massachusetts, one of two states (the other being Illinois) that continues to criminalize recording audio in public. It’s the latest in a string of victories against the Massachusetts wiretapping law that has become a useful tool for police who want to shield their actions from public scrutiny. A Massachusetts District Attorney recently refused to proceed with charges against a woman who recorded a vicious police beating, the D.A. declaring that police officers have no reasonable expectation of privacy while on duty and in public. Cop Block founders Pete Eyre and Adam Mueller were just acquitted on felony wiretapping charges for openly recording their encounter with police officers Massachusetts.
Moving on to the other holdout, Illinois, a woman who surreptitiously recorded Chicago Police Internal Affairs officers trying to persuade her not to file a sexual harassment complaint against police officers was acquitted of felony wiretapping charges. All of this sets the stage for the ACLU v. Alvarez, a lawsuit seeking to prevent future wiretapping charges against citizens who record on-duty police in public.
For more Cato work on the right to record police, take a look at this video and this post on Anthony Graber’s victory over abuse of the Maryland wiretapping statute. Speaking of which, Right to Record provides a page on the Maryland wiretapping statute, supplying the decision in Graber’s case for anyone who faces similar charges in the future.
Right to Record, a website devoted to the legal aspects of recording police officers, has the scoop. A panel of the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the right of citizens to openly record police officers.
Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting “the free discussion of governmental affairs.” Moreover, as the Court has noted, “[f]reedom of expression has particular significance with respect to government because ‘[i]t is here that the state has a special incentive to repress opposition and often wields a more effective power of suppression.’” This is particularly true of law enforcement officials, who are granted substantial discretion that may be misused to deprive individuals of their liberties. Ensuring the public’s right to gather information about their officials not only aids in the uncovering of abuses, but also may have a salutary effect on the functioning of government more generally.
Read the whole thing. It provides a great discussion of the developing legal landscape, as well as some juicy details — like the fact that the attorney defending the statute for Massachusetts wrote her student note about how the Massachusetts wiretapping law is unconstitutional.
This decision is a big deal. The case comes from Massachusetts, one of two states (the other being Illinois) that continues to criminalize recording audio in public. It’s the latest in a string of victories against the Massachusetts wiretapping law that has become a useful tool for police who want to shield their actions from public scrutiny. A Massachusetts District Attorney recently refused to proceed with charges against a woman who recorded a vicious police beating, the D.A. declaring that police officers have no reasonable expectation of privacy while on duty and in public. Cop Block founders Pete Eyre and Adam Mueller were just acquitted on felony wiretapping charges for openly recording their encounter with police officers Massachusetts.
Moving on to the other holdout, Illinois, a woman who surreptitiously recorded Chicago Police Internal Affairs officers trying to persuade her not to file a sexual harassment complaint against police officers was acquitted of felony wiretapping charges. All of this sets the stage for the ACLU v. Alvarez, a lawsuit seeking to prevent future wiretapping charges against citizens who record on-duty police in public.
For more Cato work on the right to record police, take a look at this video and this post on Anthony Graber’s victory over abuse of the Maryland wiretapping statute. Speaking of which, Right to Record provides a page on the Maryland wiretapping statute, supplying the decision in Graber’s case for anyone who faces similar charges in the future.
TSA employee charged with 'lewdness with a child'
DA charges Spring Creek man with lewdness
SPRING CREEK — A city officer arrested a Spring Creek man Wednesday morning at the Elko Area Regional Airport, where he works for the Transportation Security Administration, on a warrant charging six counts of lewdness with a child.
The Elko County Sheriff’s Office was notified in July of possible sexual contact between David Ralph Anderson, 61, and a girl younger than 14.
According to Elko Justice Court records, the victim told investigators that on seven to 10 occasions between 2010 and this year, Anderson allegedly taught the victim about various sexual acts and had sexual contact in the form of touching each other’s genitals.
Investigators reported Anderson also told the girl to sleep in his bed and taught her to say various vulgar words associated with body parts and sexual activities.
In addition, the girl stated he would rub lotion all over her body, placed his hand up her shirt to touch her breasts, had her watch pornographic films with him, encouraged her to consume alcohol and would French kiss her.
Deputy District Attorney Tyler Ingram submitted a warrant request to Elko Justice of the Peace Al Kacin on Aug. 23, which was granted along with an objection to any reduction of bail.
Anderson, who is a TSA employee according to Elko County Jail records, is being held on $250,000 bail
SPRING CREEK — A city officer arrested a Spring Creek man Wednesday morning at the Elko Area Regional Airport, where he works for the Transportation Security Administration, on a warrant charging six counts of lewdness with a child.
The Elko County Sheriff’s Office was notified in July of possible sexual contact between David Ralph Anderson, 61, and a girl younger than 14.
According to Elko Justice Court records, the victim told investigators that on seven to 10 occasions between 2010 and this year, Anderson allegedly taught the victim about various sexual acts and had sexual contact in the form of touching each other’s genitals.
Investigators reported Anderson also told the girl to sleep in his bed and taught her to say various vulgar words associated with body parts and sexual activities.
In addition, the girl stated he would rub lotion all over her body, placed his hand up her shirt to touch her breasts, had her watch pornographic films with him, encouraged her to consume alcohol and would French kiss her.
Deputy District Attorney Tyler Ingram submitted a warrant request to Elko Justice of the Peace Al Kacin on Aug. 23, which was granted along with an objection to any reduction of bail.
Anderson, who is a TSA employee according to Elko County Jail records, is being held on $250,000 bail
Perry Bills Feds $349M for Incarcerating Illegals
AUSTIN, Texas – Texas Gov. Rick Perry has asked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for nearly $350 million to cover the costs he says Texas has incurred incarcerating illegal immigrants in state prisons and county jails.
In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Perry reiterated a claim he's often leveled against the federal government: that it's not doing enough to secure the border with Mexico and as a result, has allowed illegal immigrants to enter the U.S. and use taxpayer-funded resources, including the prison system.
The letter was dated Aug. 10, three days before the Republican governor formally announced he is running for president.
Reached after-hours Friday by phone, DHS spokesman Matthew Chandler said he wasn't in position to comment and said he could not confirm that the DHS had even received the letter.
Perry has been criticized by some fellow conservatives as being too lenient on illegal immigration issues. Unlike fellow GOP presidential hopeful Rep. Michele Bachmann, Perry does not think the U.S. should build a wall spanning the entire Mexican border. Perry also has supported discounted tuition rates for the children of illegal immigrants at Texas universities, and he has said Arizona's tough-on-immigration law wouldn't be right for Texas.
As governor, Perry was one of the first to talk about immigration by breaking out the issue of border security, a move that has won him support from conservative Hispanics. But he angered Hispanic leaders in June by endorsing legislation that would have prohibited cities from adopting "sanctuary" rules for handling suspected immigrants.
In his two-page letter to Napolitano, Perry described the formula used to come up with his $349.2 million bill, including $94.4 million to cover costs incurred by county jails.
"During tough economic times, when communities are making difficult decisions about their own budgets, Texas counties are being asked to cover more than $94.4 million in direct costs related to housing illegal immigrants while the state has been left to cover more than $254.8 million in such costs."
He included a memo from Comptroller Susan Combs in which she supports his calculations but warns that the estimates are conservative.
"The longstanding failure of the federal government to secure our border with Mexico continues to burden local communities and resources in Texas," Perry wrote. "Because there are not enough troops on the ground, illegal immigrants are able to penetrate the Texas border every day and use taxpayer-funded resources."
Perry is not the first governor to try to bill the federal government for the costs of incarcerating illegal immigrants. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, sued the DHS in February seeking compensation for incarceration costs, among other things. And Napolitano herself, who preceded Brewer as Arizona governor, regularly sent the Justice Department invoices seeking such reimbursement before she became Homeland Security secretary.
In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Perry reiterated a claim he's often leveled against the federal government: that it's not doing enough to secure the border with Mexico and as a result, has allowed illegal immigrants to enter the U.S. and use taxpayer-funded resources, including the prison system.
The letter was dated Aug. 10, three days before the Republican governor formally announced he is running for president.
Reached after-hours Friday by phone, DHS spokesman Matthew Chandler said he wasn't in position to comment and said he could not confirm that the DHS had even received the letter.
Perry has been criticized by some fellow conservatives as being too lenient on illegal immigration issues. Unlike fellow GOP presidential hopeful Rep. Michele Bachmann, Perry does not think the U.S. should build a wall spanning the entire Mexican border. Perry also has supported discounted tuition rates for the children of illegal immigrants at Texas universities, and he has said Arizona's tough-on-immigration law wouldn't be right for Texas.
As governor, Perry was one of the first to talk about immigration by breaking out the issue of border security, a move that has won him support from conservative Hispanics. But he angered Hispanic leaders in June by endorsing legislation that would have prohibited cities from adopting "sanctuary" rules for handling suspected immigrants.
In his two-page letter to Napolitano, Perry described the formula used to come up with his $349.2 million bill, including $94.4 million to cover costs incurred by county jails.
"During tough economic times, when communities are making difficult decisions about their own budgets, Texas counties are being asked to cover more than $94.4 million in direct costs related to housing illegal immigrants while the state has been left to cover more than $254.8 million in such costs."
He included a memo from Comptroller Susan Combs in which she supports his calculations but warns that the estimates are conservative.
"The longstanding failure of the federal government to secure our border with Mexico continues to burden local communities and resources in Texas," Perry wrote. "Because there are not enough troops on the ground, illegal immigrants are able to penetrate the Texas border every day and use taxpayer-funded resources."
Perry is not the first governor to try to bill the federal government for the costs of incarcerating illegal immigrants. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, sued the DHS in February seeking compensation for incarceration costs, among other things. And Napolitano herself, who preceded Brewer as Arizona governor, regularly sent the Justice Department invoices seeking such reimbursement before she became Homeland Security secretary.
New iPhone app keeps track of Obama approval rating, unemployment rate, nat'l debt, housing index, gas prices...
This app is a countdown to either Barack Obama's second inauguration or his final days as President of the United States. In addition, the application will download and update the following important voter metrics:
Approval Rating
Public Debt
Unemployment Level
Gasoline Cost Per Gallon
Housing Price Index
*Note: To refresh your data, simply press Obama's Trojan Tree Pin*
The app also allows you to connect with the Obama Clock Facebook Page, so you may stay up to date on the President and share with your friends.
Future enhancements to this application are already in the works. Please rate the Obama Clock based on its current features, with improvement suggestions for V2.0 and beyond!
Approval Rating
Public Debt
Unemployment Level
Gasoline Cost Per Gallon
Housing Price Index
*Note: To refresh your data, simply press Obama's Trojan Tree Pin*
The app also allows you to connect with the Obama Clock Facebook Page, so you may stay up to date on the President and share with your friends.
Future enhancements to this application are already in the works. Please rate the Obama Clock based on its current features, with improvement suggestions for V2.0 and beyond!
Gaddafi 'seen in Zimbabwe on Mugabe's private jet'
The bodies of up to 150 Libyan civilians were found yesterday near Tripoli after allegedly being massacred by pro-Gaddafi forces.
Journalists said they counted as many as 53 executed bodies in a burnt-out farm warehouse near the Khamis military base where the murders are thought to have taken place last Tuesday and Wednesday.
The bodies of two soldiers were found with their hands tied behind their backs. Locals believe they refused to fire on the people being held inside the warehouse, and were then murdered.
Elsewhere, rebels massing outside Gaddafi’s last bastion of power, his home town of Sirte, say they hope they can take it with little bloodshed.
Many believe the deposed leader may be hiding with his family in a bunker in the town.
Rebel leaders said Sirte residents were being ‘virtually held hostage’ by troops ‘brainwashed’ by Gaddafi over the years, but wanted to join the revolution.
‘They know it is all over for Gaddafi,’ said Ahmed Jebril, special adviser to Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the head of Libya’s government-in-waiting, the National Transitional Council.
‘We hope that our fighters will once again drive into a Gaddafi stronghold and be greeted warmly by its people.
‘This happened in Tripoli where we feared much blood. We pray it can happen in Sirte too.’
A more sinister worry for the NTC is Gaddafi’s huge weapons store in the desert city of Waddan, 125 miles south of Sirte. The site is remote and guarded by hardcore Gaddafi loyalists.
‘Our fighters are moving there now,’ said Mr Jebril. ‘There are fears of a chemical stockpile by Gaddafi. We cannot be sure if that is true.’
However, some have said that Gaddafi has fled Libya to Zimbabwe on a jet provided by Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe, it was claimed today, as rebels began the march on his home town.
President Mugabe's political opponents claim their spies saw Gaddafi arrive in the country on a Zimbabwe Air Force jet in the early hours of Wednesday morning.
They say the Libyan dictator was taken to a mansion in Harare's Gunninghill suburb, where agents from his all-female bodyguard were apparently seen patrolling the grounds.
'There's no doubt that Gaddafi is here as a 'unique guest' of Mugabe,' a spokesman for Zimbabwe's opposition Movement for Democratic Change told the Sun.
If he has left Libya, Gaddafi could have fled from an airbase in his home town of Sirte, which has been bombarded by Nato warplanes in recent days.
The colonel's bunker in the coastal town was blitzed by cruise missiles fired by British Tornado jets on a long-range sortie last night.
The claims come as:
Rebel commanders claimed victory in a vital border town and announced they are to merge their fighters in Tripoli under one command;
Leaders of the National Transitional Council (NTC) pressed foreign governments to release Libyan funds frozen overseas;
The British Government pledged to fund humanitarian invervention by the Red Cross;
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon asked for international organisations' help in ensuring an urgent end to fighting and restoration of order in Libya.
Earlier Libyan rebels claimed victory in Ras Jdir, raising their flag at the border post with Tunisia after bloody clashes with regime loyalists.
There was no sign of a swift end to the civil war, which rebels have vowed will only end when Gaddafi is captured - dead or alive - but they claimed to be closing in on the strongman.
A detachment of rebel fighters was turning its attention to Sirte, Gaddafi's birthplace, 300 miles east of Tripoli, where British warplanes have bombarded a bunker with cruise missiles.
Some believe that Gaddafi, if he is still in the country, may seek refuge among his tribesmen in the Mediterranean city, which is still holding out against the rebel advance.
Loyalist forces also still hold positions deep in the Sahara desert, days after rebels took much of the capital, looted Gaddafi's compound and paraded their stolen souvenirs.
'Sirte remains an operating base from which pro-Gaddafi troops project hostile forces against Misrata and Tripoli,' said a Nato official, adding that its forces had also acted to stop a column of 29 vehicles heading west toward Misrata.
Meanwhile, leaders of the NTC, the rebel administration, pressed foreign governments to release Libyan funds frozen abroad.
It says the money is urgently needed to impose order and provide services to a population traumatised by six months of civil conflict and 42 years of dictatorial rule.
But Gaddafi's African allies have continued to offer a grain of comfort to the under-pressure dictator by refusing to recognise the legal government.
The African Union called for the formation of an inclusive transitional government in Libya, saying it could not recognise the rebels as sole legitimate representatives of the nation while fighting continues.
If fighting continues unchecked, there are fears that Libya's conflict will spill over into the remote regions of Mali, Niger, Chad and Mauritania.
Algeria has said it believes the chaos inside Libya, and large quantities of weapons circulating there, are already being exploited by al Qaeda's North African branch.
And an influential former Malian rebel, believed to have been involved in the trade of looted weapons from Libya, has been killed in Mali, officials said yesterday.
However, taking control of the Ras Jdir border post reopens a path for humanitarian aid and other supplies from Tunisia to Tripoli, where stocks of medicines and fuel are running low.
The Red Cross today announced that medical support funded by the British Government will help thousands of patients injured during the conflict in Libya, as well as those with serious diseases.
Surgical teams and medicines will be laid on to help up to 5,000 wounded, as well as food and household essentials for almost 690,000.
Red Cross spokesman Steven Anderson said: 'Medical supplies are one of the main problems that will help people on the ground out there.
'Many drugs are lacking and the import has been slowed down. Even drugs for cancer, diabetes, kidney failure are running out and that is a real issue.'
The support comes amid reports of harrowing conditions in one Tripoli hospital - the abandoned Abu Salim hospital - where dozens of decomposing bodies were piled up.
It will also include helping families reunite after being broken up by the conflict.
Britain will provide urgent humanitarian support including medical help, food and other basic supplies for thousands of people affected by the conflict in Libya, International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell announced today.
Mr Mitchell said humanitarian agencies were doing 'extraordinary' work while putting their own lives on the line in Libya.
'As the conflict moves into its final stages there are many Libyans in need of urgent humanitarian help,' he said.
'The situation on the ground in Tripoli is an incredibly difficult one for humanitarian agencies.
'But organisations such as the ICRC are doing extraordinary work in dangerous and difficult circumstances to get supplies and doctors through to those in need.
'This new funding from our development budget will help them to continue their vital work in critical areas across Libya.
'Today we pay a huge tribute to the humanitarian agencies who are risking their lives in Libya to help and sustain their fellow human beings.'
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Friday that African, Arab and European organizations agreed on the urgent need to end the fighting in Libya and restore order with help from international police if the new government requests security assistance.
After a video conference with top officials from the African Union, Arab League, European Union and Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the Mr Ban told reporters that 'all agreed that the crisis in Libya has entered a new and decisive phase' and a smooth transition is essential with the UN playing a key role.
'That transition must be grounded in inclusiveness, reconciliation and national unity - under a new government that can effectively deliver on the Libyan people's aspirations for democracy, freedom, and growing social and economic prosperity,' Mr Ban said.
'Clearly, the challenges ahead are enormous,' he said.
Fox praises key role of the RAF
British defence chiefs say the campaign to topple Gaddafi was inspired by a simple motto – ‘remember the lessons of Iraq’.
From the start of Nato’s air campaign five months ago, the MoD argued that a key mistake of the Allied assault on Saddam Hussein had been the smashing of his country’s infra¬structure such as power plants and government buildings.
It meant that by the time victory was achieved, Iraq needed to be rebuilt virtually from scratch – leaving a dangerous power vacuum while the work was done.
But in the drive against Gaddafi, British RAF pilots have played a key role in precision bombing, which has taken out major military targets while keeping civilian casualties to a minimum and leaving Libya’s ‘vital functions’ largely intact.
Defence Secretary Liam Fox is said to be ‘delighted’ by the success of the strategy, and by the role played by high-tech British weaponry.
Brimstone missiles, air-launched anti-tank weapons developed for the RAF five years ago, have proved to be a particular success. The laser-guided weapons have proved to be phenomenally accurate, even against moving targets. The Typhoon fighters used in bombing raids have also ‘performed extremely well’ and the MoD says it expects large export orders for the planes after their performance in the ‘showroom’ of Libya.
Dr Fox said yesterday: ‘We decided from the beginning that we should show the respect for human life that Gaddafi so manifestly disregarded.’
Meanwhile, defence officials warn that the hunt for Gaddafi might be prolonged.
One source said: ‘Libya is a very large country and the Gaddafi regime had plenty of time to prepare an escape plan.
Journalists said they counted as many as 53 executed bodies in a burnt-out farm warehouse near the Khamis military base where the murders are thought to have taken place last Tuesday and Wednesday.
The bodies of two soldiers were found with their hands tied behind their backs. Locals believe they refused to fire on the people being held inside the warehouse, and were then murdered.
Elsewhere, rebels massing outside Gaddafi’s last bastion of power, his home town of Sirte, say they hope they can take it with little bloodshed.
Many believe the deposed leader may be hiding with his family in a bunker in the town.
Rebel leaders said Sirte residents were being ‘virtually held hostage’ by troops ‘brainwashed’ by Gaddafi over the years, but wanted to join the revolution.
‘They know it is all over for Gaddafi,’ said Ahmed Jebril, special adviser to Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the head of Libya’s government-in-waiting, the National Transitional Council.
‘We hope that our fighters will once again drive into a Gaddafi stronghold and be greeted warmly by its people.
‘This happened in Tripoli where we feared much blood. We pray it can happen in Sirte too.’
A more sinister worry for the NTC is Gaddafi’s huge weapons store in the desert city of Waddan, 125 miles south of Sirte. The site is remote and guarded by hardcore Gaddafi loyalists.
‘Our fighters are moving there now,’ said Mr Jebril. ‘There are fears of a chemical stockpile by Gaddafi. We cannot be sure if that is true.’
However, some have said that Gaddafi has fled Libya to Zimbabwe on a jet provided by Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe, it was claimed today, as rebels began the march on his home town.
President Mugabe's political opponents claim their spies saw Gaddafi arrive in the country on a Zimbabwe Air Force jet in the early hours of Wednesday morning.
They say the Libyan dictator was taken to a mansion in Harare's Gunninghill suburb, where agents from his all-female bodyguard were apparently seen patrolling the grounds.
'There's no doubt that Gaddafi is here as a 'unique guest' of Mugabe,' a spokesman for Zimbabwe's opposition Movement for Democratic Change told the Sun.
If he has left Libya, Gaddafi could have fled from an airbase in his home town of Sirte, which has been bombarded by Nato warplanes in recent days.
The colonel's bunker in the coastal town was blitzed by cruise missiles fired by British Tornado jets on a long-range sortie last night.
The claims come as:
Rebel commanders claimed victory in a vital border town and announced they are to merge their fighters in Tripoli under one command;
Leaders of the National Transitional Council (NTC) pressed foreign governments to release Libyan funds frozen overseas;
The British Government pledged to fund humanitarian invervention by the Red Cross;
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon asked for international organisations' help in ensuring an urgent end to fighting and restoration of order in Libya.
Earlier Libyan rebels claimed victory in Ras Jdir, raising their flag at the border post with Tunisia after bloody clashes with regime loyalists.
There was no sign of a swift end to the civil war, which rebels have vowed will only end when Gaddafi is captured - dead or alive - but they claimed to be closing in on the strongman.
A detachment of rebel fighters was turning its attention to Sirte, Gaddafi's birthplace, 300 miles east of Tripoli, where British warplanes have bombarded a bunker with cruise missiles.
Some believe that Gaddafi, if he is still in the country, may seek refuge among his tribesmen in the Mediterranean city, which is still holding out against the rebel advance.
Loyalist forces also still hold positions deep in the Sahara desert, days after rebels took much of the capital, looted Gaddafi's compound and paraded their stolen souvenirs.
'Sirte remains an operating base from which pro-Gaddafi troops project hostile forces against Misrata and Tripoli,' said a Nato official, adding that its forces had also acted to stop a column of 29 vehicles heading west toward Misrata.
Meanwhile, leaders of the NTC, the rebel administration, pressed foreign governments to release Libyan funds frozen abroad.
It says the money is urgently needed to impose order and provide services to a population traumatised by six months of civil conflict and 42 years of dictatorial rule.
But Gaddafi's African allies have continued to offer a grain of comfort to the under-pressure dictator by refusing to recognise the legal government.
The African Union called for the formation of an inclusive transitional government in Libya, saying it could not recognise the rebels as sole legitimate representatives of the nation while fighting continues.
If fighting continues unchecked, there are fears that Libya's conflict will spill over into the remote regions of Mali, Niger, Chad and Mauritania.
Algeria has said it believes the chaos inside Libya, and large quantities of weapons circulating there, are already being exploited by al Qaeda's North African branch.
And an influential former Malian rebel, believed to have been involved in the trade of looted weapons from Libya, has been killed in Mali, officials said yesterday.
However, taking control of the Ras Jdir border post reopens a path for humanitarian aid and other supplies from Tunisia to Tripoli, where stocks of medicines and fuel are running low.
The Red Cross today announced that medical support funded by the British Government will help thousands of patients injured during the conflict in Libya, as well as those with serious diseases.
Surgical teams and medicines will be laid on to help up to 5,000 wounded, as well as food and household essentials for almost 690,000.
Red Cross spokesman Steven Anderson said: 'Medical supplies are one of the main problems that will help people on the ground out there.
'Many drugs are lacking and the import has been slowed down. Even drugs for cancer, diabetes, kidney failure are running out and that is a real issue.'
The support comes amid reports of harrowing conditions in one Tripoli hospital - the abandoned Abu Salim hospital - where dozens of decomposing bodies were piled up.
It will also include helping families reunite after being broken up by the conflict.
Britain will provide urgent humanitarian support including medical help, food and other basic supplies for thousands of people affected by the conflict in Libya, International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell announced today.
Mr Mitchell said humanitarian agencies were doing 'extraordinary' work while putting their own lives on the line in Libya.
'As the conflict moves into its final stages there are many Libyans in need of urgent humanitarian help,' he said.
'The situation on the ground in Tripoli is an incredibly difficult one for humanitarian agencies.
'But organisations such as the ICRC are doing extraordinary work in dangerous and difficult circumstances to get supplies and doctors through to those in need.
'This new funding from our development budget will help them to continue their vital work in critical areas across Libya.
'Today we pay a huge tribute to the humanitarian agencies who are risking their lives in Libya to help and sustain their fellow human beings.'
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Friday that African, Arab and European organizations agreed on the urgent need to end the fighting in Libya and restore order with help from international police if the new government requests security assistance.
After a video conference with top officials from the African Union, Arab League, European Union and Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the Mr Ban told reporters that 'all agreed that the crisis in Libya has entered a new and decisive phase' and a smooth transition is essential with the UN playing a key role.
'That transition must be grounded in inclusiveness, reconciliation and national unity - under a new government that can effectively deliver on the Libyan people's aspirations for democracy, freedom, and growing social and economic prosperity,' Mr Ban said.
'Clearly, the challenges ahead are enormous,' he said.
Fox praises key role of the RAF
British defence chiefs say the campaign to topple Gaddafi was inspired by a simple motto – ‘remember the lessons of Iraq’.
From the start of Nato’s air campaign five months ago, the MoD argued that a key mistake of the Allied assault on Saddam Hussein had been the smashing of his country’s infra¬structure such as power plants and government buildings.
It meant that by the time victory was achieved, Iraq needed to be rebuilt virtually from scratch – leaving a dangerous power vacuum while the work was done.
But in the drive against Gaddafi, British RAF pilots have played a key role in precision bombing, which has taken out major military targets while keeping civilian casualties to a minimum and leaving Libya’s ‘vital functions’ largely intact.
Defence Secretary Liam Fox is said to be ‘delighted’ by the success of the strategy, and by the role played by high-tech British weaponry.
Brimstone missiles, air-launched anti-tank weapons developed for the RAF five years ago, have proved to be a particular success. The laser-guided weapons have proved to be phenomenally accurate, even against moving targets. The Typhoon fighters used in bombing raids have also ‘performed extremely well’ and the MoD says it expects large export orders for the planes after their performance in the ‘showroom’ of Libya.
Dr Fox said yesterday: ‘We decided from the beginning that we should show the respect for human life that Gaddafi so manifestly disregarded.’
Meanwhile, defence officials warn that the hunt for Gaddafi might be prolonged.
One source said: ‘Libya is a very large country and the Gaddafi regime had plenty of time to prepare an escape plan.
Obama's Legacy: A Failed Recovery & Double-Dip Recession
There will be no significant recovery in the United States of America while Barack Obama is President. The evidence is overwhelming: everything Obama has tried to fuel a recovery (with his Democratic allies in Congress) has failed. Statistics claiming jobs saved by the stimulus package were mostly fiction, and cost American taxpayers about $275,000 each. Nearly 2-1/2 million fewer Americans have jobs than before the stimulus.
Barack Obama has been President for 30 months—2-1/2 years. He spent the first year obsessed with passing Obamacare, a program that doesn’t create jobs, but might destroy a lot of them. He “bailed out” GM, but many believe that his interference didn’t save GM; it merely cost taxpayers an extra $15-20 billion, and stole from legitimate investors to buy off the UAW. His broken campaign promises are too numerous to list. At some point, his statute of limitations on blaming Bush runs out. The latest joke is that the White House is that named the location of East Coast earthquake near DC “Bush’s Fault.”
Obama himself said, “…that after three years, if the economy wasn’t fixed he should be a one-term president.”
Clearly the economic malaise started on George W. Bush’s watch. Its causes will be argued for decades, but most of them are traceable to irresponsible lending and excessive spending— both by government and the American people. The trouble that started before 2008 is directly traceable to actions (or inactions) of Bush and GOP allies in Congress. They spent America into the start of the current deficit during his eight years in the White House.
But that was then, and this is now. Since Obama took office the situation has gotten much, much worse. Obama has run up the deficit at more than twice the rate Bush did. During the first quarter of 2011, the US economy “barely grew” —at 0.4%—that was followed by second quarter’s “anemic growth” of 1%. This was during the period when the Obama recovery was supposed to be well underway. Employment data is unremittingly terrible: new jobless claims are stuck at 400,000+/- each month, with job creation well below what it takes just to absorb new workforce entrants. More Americans have been unemployed longer than ever in our history. And looking ahead, the news is not good.
This is Obama’s failed American recovery, and in the near future, Obama’s impending double-dip recession (thanks in no small part to his three consecutive years with Trillion-dollar in deficits that have inflated the national deficit to soaring heights—$14+ Trillion.) That legacy clearly belongs to President Barack Obama and with help from the Congress led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi during 2008-2010. Thanks to them, our country hasn’t even had a budget since Obama took office.
The latest Obama Blame Finger pointing focuses on the “Tea Party” as “extremists” who have a problem with astronomical deficits as far as the eye can see. (Pointing at Bush is getting a little old since he’s been out of office for 2-1/2 years). Obama needs a new scapegoat. The problem with the Tea Party is that it is like the child in the fairy tale, “The Emperors New Clothes.” The child is reviled for pointing out that the emperor is naked. Thus, the Tea Party is not wrong, just unwelcome.
Now Obama also wants to point the Blame Finger at the GOP House for the downgrade in the US debt rating by Standard and Poor’s. It seems that he believes that everyone else is to blame but him. That downgrade was predestined by the combination of irresponsible spending and Obama’s clueless attempts to throw money at a recovery to no avail. Spending $1.50 for every dollar of revenue, running trillion dollar annual deficits is reason enough for a downgrade in the US debt rating.
Face it folks: This is Obama’s failed recovery. And if (or when) it comes to pass, this “double-dip” recession (just around the corner) is his too.
Make no mistake, there IS plenty of blame to go around. About 75% of Americans are fed up with both Obama and Congress. The conservative and liberal factions of the House and Senate behaved badly in the recent debt ceiling negotiation. President Obama wanted to stay above the fray so he provided no leadership. He didn’t even know how to bring the opposing viewpoints together. He talked about bi-partisanship and consensus, but his actions disproved his words.
Until the president saw an impending disaster, he sat on the sidelines, afraid to do anything that might hinder his reelection campaign. Then, when his intervention didn’t help, and arguably hurt the progress, he grew impatient, petulant and angry.
John Boehner, however, did an admirable job trying to build a compromise deal on the debt ceiling, and get his own Caucus to support such a plan. Except, Obama was attacked by his liberal base for even considering the “grand bargain,” so he came in and dumped another “raise taxes more” demand on Boehner. I’d have walked out too, which Boehner was right to do.
But at least they were arguing about the right thing: how much to cut spending and how.
The Tea Party’s desire for fiscal responsibility is right, but it doesn’t mean that tax revenue can’t be increased. It can; how it’s done is what matters. The tax code desperately needs to be restructured. Simply digging in on old positions doesn’t help; it hurts. The goal is to “get the country working again,” and grow our way out of this mess.
The one phrase of President Obama’s that I agree with is “Country First.” But John Boehner was the one who tried his best to put “Country First.” If Obama truly chooses that as his 2012 campaign slogan, it will reek of hypocrisy.
If the members of Congress would put 1) country first, 2) constituents wishes next, and 3) personal agendas last, they might be able to work together to find a way out of this mess.
What happens in the Super-Committee of Twelve will be both revealing and predictive. Either America’s Congressional leaders will—or won’t—put "country first" and try to find common ground and reasonable compromises to lead America out of this mess.
Whatever happens, this failed recovery and impending recession belong to President Barack Obama. His condescending explanations of why “we Americans” don’t get it, how “this will take a long time,” this recovery, and his “class warfare” about “millionaires and billionaires” versus the “common folk” are all wearing thin.
This kind of rhetoric won’t solve America’s problems. It takes strong, informed, and experienced leadership to get through a mess like this one. We need a fixer, not a hypocritical speechmaker in the White House. Barack Obama is not that man. A wise man once told me, “The person who got you into a problem is seldom the one who will get you out of it.” That’s why there will be no recovery on Obama’s watch, but there could be a double-dip recession.
by John Mariotti
Barack Obama has been President for 30 months—2-1/2 years. He spent the first year obsessed with passing Obamacare, a program that doesn’t create jobs, but might destroy a lot of them. He “bailed out” GM, but many believe that his interference didn’t save GM; it merely cost taxpayers an extra $15-20 billion, and stole from legitimate investors to buy off the UAW. His broken campaign promises are too numerous to list. At some point, his statute of limitations on blaming Bush runs out. The latest joke is that the White House is that named the location of East Coast earthquake near DC “Bush’s Fault.”
Obama himself said, “…that after three years, if the economy wasn’t fixed he should be a one-term president.”
Clearly the economic malaise started on George W. Bush’s watch. Its causes will be argued for decades, but most of them are traceable to irresponsible lending and excessive spending— both by government and the American people. The trouble that started before 2008 is directly traceable to actions (or inactions) of Bush and GOP allies in Congress. They spent America into the start of the current deficit during his eight years in the White House.
But that was then, and this is now. Since Obama took office the situation has gotten much, much worse. Obama has run up the deficit at more than twice the rate Bush did. During the first quarter of 2011, the US economy “barely grew” —at 0.4%—that was followed by second quarter’s “anemic growth” of 1%. This was during the period when the Obama recovery was supposed to be well underway. Employment data is unremittingly terrible: new jobless claims are stuck at 400,000+/- each month, with job creation well below what it takes just to absorb new workforce entrants. More Americans have been unemployed longer than ever in our history. And looking ahead, the news is not good.
This is Obama’s failed American recovery, and in the near future, Obama’s impending double-dip recession (thanks in no small part to his three consecutive years with Trillion-dollar in deficits that have inflated the national deficit to soaring heights—$14+ Trillion.) That legacy clearly belongs to President Barack Obama and with help from the Congress led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi during 2008-2010. Thanks to them, our country hasn’t even had a budget since Obama took office.
The latest Obama Blame Finger pointing focuses on the “Tea Party” as “extremists” who have a problem with astronomical deficits as far as the eye can see. (Pointing at Bush is getting a little old since he’s been out of office for 2-1/2 years). Obama needs a new scapegoat. The problem with the Tea Party is that it is like the child in the fairy tale, “The Emperors New Clothes.” The child is reviled for pointing out that the emperor is naked. Thus, the Tea Party is not wrong, just unwelcome.
Now Obama also wants to point the Blame Finger at the GOP House for the downgrade in the US debt rating by Standard and Poor’s. It seems that he believes that everyone else is to blame but him. That downgrade was predestined by the combination of irresponsible spending and Obama’s clueless attempts to throw money at a recovery to no avail. Spending $1.50 for every dollar of revenue, running trillion dollar annual deficits is reason enough for a downgrade in the US debt rating.
Face it folks: This is Obama’s failed recovery. And if (or when) it comes to pass, this “double-dip” recession (just around the corner) is his too.
Make no mistake, there IS plenty of blame to go around. About 75% of Americans are fed up with both Obama and Congress. The conservative and liberal factions of the House and Senate behaved badly in the recent debt ceiling negotiation. President Obama wanted to stay above the fray so he provided no leadership. He didn’t even know how to bring the opposing viewpoints together. He talked about bi-partisanship and consensus, but his actions disproved his words.
Until the president saw an impending disaster, he sat on the sidelines, afraid to do anything that might hinder his reelection campaign. Then, when his intervention didn’t help, and arguably hurt the progress, he grew impatient, petulant and angry.
John Boehner, however, did an admirable job trying to build a compromise deal on the debt ceiling, and get his own Caucus to support such a plan. Except, Obama was attacked by his liberal base for even considering the “grand bargain,” so he came in and dumped another “raise taxes more” demand on Boehner. I’d have walked out too, which Boehner was right to do.
But at least they were arguing about the right thing: how much to cut spending and how.
The Tea Party’s desire for fiscal responsibility is right, but it doesn’t mean that tax revenue can’t be increased. It can; how it’s done is what matters. The tax code desperately needs to be restructured. Simply digging in on old positions doesn’t help; it hurts. The goal is to “get the country working again,” and grow our way out of this mess.
The one phrase of President Obama’s that I agree with is “Country First.” But John Boehner was the one who tried his best to put “Country First.” If Obama truly chooses that as his 2012 campaign slogan, it will reek of hypocrisy.
If the members of Congress would put 1) country first, 2) constituents wishes next, and 3) personal agendas last, they might be able to work together to find a way out of this mess.
What happens in the Super-Committee of Twelve will be both revealing and predictive. Either America’s Congressional leaders will—or won’t—put "country first" and try to find common ground and reasonable compromises to lead America out of this mess.
Whatever happens, this failed recovery and impending recession belong to President Barack Obama. His condescending explanations of why “we Americans” don’t get it, how “this will take a long time,” this recovery, and his “class warfare” about “millionaires and billionaires” versus the “common folk” are all wearing thin.
This kind of rhetoric won’t solve America’s problems. It takes strong, informed, and experienced leadership to get through a mess like this one. We need a fixer, not a hypocritical speechmaker in the White House. Barack Obama is not that man. A wise man once told me, “The person who got you into a problem is seldom the one who will get you out of it.” That’s why there will be no recovery on Obama’s watch, but there could be a double-dip recession.
by John Mariotti
Is Ron Paul A Useful Idiot?
You saw it here first, folks!
Over at the American Spectator, the great Jeffrey Lord writes that “almost to a person … prominent pre-Ron Paul non-interventionist “Paulist” politicians of the 20th century were overwhelmingly not conservatives at all. They were men of the left. The far left.”
From three-time Democratic presidential nominee and Woodrow Wilson Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan to powerful Montana Democratic Senator Burton K. Wheeler to FDR’s ex-vice presidential nominee Henry Wallace to the 1968 anti-war presidential candidacy of Minnesota Democratic Senator Eugene McCarthy to 1972 Democratic presidential nominee (and Henry Wallace delegate in 1948) George McGovern, non-interventionists have held prominent positions in the American Left that was and is the Democratic Party.(emphasis added)
What was unique about Wallace’s 1948 Progressive Party campaign was how it was completely controlled by the secret Communist Party agents that surrounded Wallace, despite the fact that he was not a Communist. Lillian Hellman, who despite her denials was indeed a secret member of the Communist Party, admitted as much in her 1976 book Scoundrel Time:
During the early autumn of 1948, four or five of us [leaders of the Progressive Party campaign] were eating lunch together on the day of a large evening rally. When lunch was finished Wallace suggested that he and I take a walk. … When we had walked for a while, he asked me if it was true that many of the people, the important people, in the Progressive Party were Communists. It was such a surprising question that I laughed and said most certainly it was true.
He said, “Then it is true, what they’re saying?”
“Yes,” I said. “I thought you must have known that. The hard, dirty work in the office is done by them and a good deal of the bad advice you’re getting is given by the higher-ups. I don’t think they mean any harm; they’re stubborn men.”
“I see,” he said, and that was that.
What is clear is that the Communists – who, of course, did mean harm – were able to drive the campaign of a non-Communist due to their influence. And Wallace knew it, despite his public denials. As Arthur Herman pointed out in National Review “when Hubert Humphrey complained about the prominent role Communists were playing in the election, Wallace blithely told him to go talk to the Russian embassy — it had more influence over his campaign officials than he did.”
So if it can happen to Henry Wallace, why can’t it happen to his Republican mirror, Ron Paul? On Thursday, Mark Levin had Jeffrey Lord on his show to talk about his article (listen to it here, here and here), where they discussed all the crackpots and “neo-confederates” that surround Ron Paul in his inner circle. What would a group like think of, say, Israel?
Well, on his own website, we find that: “On January 9, [2009] Ron Paul addressed Congress to voice his opposition to a House resolution expressing strong support for Israel in its invasion of Gaza, and branding Hamas as a terrorist organization.” It goes on to proudly highlight that he went on Press TV (the Iranian state propaganda channel) and Russia Today (KGB-TV basically, with it’s paid agents promoting and even doing fund-raising for Ron Paul).
Anyone who has spent time around his supporters know what they think of Israel, and likely had to hear the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that are so widespread in his little cult. What is their influence? Why doesn’t he denounce them? Also, such a denunciation would have a devastating impact both the national and international crackpot communities that sustain anti-Americanism, as the great Cold War era defector and former KGB General turned American Patriot Ion Mihai Pacepa explained. Wouldn’t that be in our national interest, Dr. Paul?
I await my hate mail.
Over at the American Spectator, the great Jeffrey Lord writes that “almost to a person … prominent pre-Ron Paul non-interventionist “Paulist” politicians of the 20th century were overwhelmingly not conservatives at all. They were men of the left. The far left.”
From three-time Democratic presidential nominee and Woodrow Wilson Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan to powerful Montana Democratic Senator Burton K. Wheeler to FDR’s ex-vice presidential nominee Henry Wallace to the 1968 anti-war presidential candidacy of Minnesota Democratic Senator Eugene McCarthy to 1972 Democratic presidential nominee (and Henry Wallace delegate in 1948) George McGovern, non-interventionists have held prominent positions in the American Left that was and is the Democratic Party.(emphasis added)
What was unique about Wallace’s 1948 Progressive Party campaign was how it was completely controlled by the secret Communist Party agents that surrounded Wallace, despite the fact that he was not a Communist. Lillian Hellman, who despite her denials was indeed a secret member of the Communist Party, admitted as much in her 1976 book Scoundrel Time:
During the early autumn of 1948, four or five of us [leaders of the Progressive Party campaign] were eating lunch together on the day of a large evening rally. When lunch was finished Wallace suggested that he and I take a walk. … When we had walked for a while, he asked me if it was true that many of the people, the important people, in the Progressive Party were Communists. It was such a surprising question that I laughed and said most certainly it was true.
He said, “Then it is true, what they’re saying?”
“Yes,” I said. “I thought you must have known that. The hard, dirty work in the office is done by them and a good deal of the bad advice you’re getting is given by the higher-ups. I don’t think they mean any harm; they’re stubborn men.”
“I see,” he said, and that was that.
What is clear is that the Communists – who, of course, did mean harm – were able to drive the campaign of a non-Communist due to their influence. And Wallace knew it, despite his public denials. As Arthur Herman pointed out in National Review “when Hubert Humphrey complained about the prominent role Communists were playing in the election, Wallace blithely told him to go talk to the Russian embassy — it had more influence over his campaign officials than he did.”
So if it can happen to Henry Wallace, why can’t it happen to his Republican mirror, Ron Paul? On Thursday, Mark Levin had Jeffrey Lord on his show to talk about his article (listen to it here, here and here), where they discussed all the crackpots and “neo-confederates” that surround Ron Paul in his inner circle. What would a group like think of, say, Israel?
Well, on his own website, we find that: “On January 9, [2009] Ron Paul addressed Congress to voice his opposition to a House resolution expressing strong support for Israel in its invasion of Gaza, and branding Hamas as a terrorist organization.” It goes on to proudly highlight that he went on Press TV (the Iranian state propaganda channel) and Russia Today (KGB-TV basically, with it’s paid agents promoting and even doing fund-raising for Ron Paul).
Anyone who has spent time around his supporters know what they think of Israel, and likely had to hear the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that are so widespread in his little cult. What is their influence? Why doesn’t he denounce them? Also, such a denunciation would have a devastating impact both the national and international crackpot communities that sustain anti-Americanism, as the great Cold War era defector and former KGB General turned American Patriot Ion Mihai Pacepa explained. Wouldn’t that be in our national interest, Dr. Paul?
I await my hate mail.
The Politics of Fear
– William F. Buckley Jr., Up From Liberalism (1959)
In February, the National Interest published an article by Ian Kershaw called “The Ghosts of Fascists Past“:
A prominent British government minister, Baroness Warsi, herself a Muslim, claimed just recently that Islamophobia has “passed the dinner-table test” in Britain and is seen by many as normal and uncontroversial. She warned of growing intolerance, prejudice and bigotry toward the Muslim faith and its adherents. . . .
If we add to the mix the anti-immigrant feeling that is widespread in many parts of the Continent, then racism, it has to be admitted, is far from eradicated. How dangerous is it, given these countries’ baleful histories of racism and fascism in the not-too-distant past? Not surprisingly, some have asked whether Europe is moving toward political extremes. Do the signs point that way? Is Europe indeed on the road to new racial intolerance that could give succor to the extremist Right and even offer it new, promising prospects? . . .
Perhaps some would point toward last month’s Oslo massacre as evidence of such a trend, but I think that’s misleading. Anders Breivik was a lone wolf, a one-off like Timothy McVeigh. Recall that the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing was at the time heralded as a symbol of an alleged menace — right-wing militias — that never really developed into anything. And likewise we have no evidence that Breivik’s murder spree was the leading edge of a mass movement.
This is not to minimize the extent or significance of Breivik’s (or McVeigh’s) association with the Right, but rather to illustrate that even the most extreme elements of the Right seldom resort to terrorist violence, and such violence never serves to advance the cause on behalf of which its perpetrators purport to act. In democratic societies, political violence tends to be self-defeating, discrediting those who employ it. Yet there is an industry devoted to conjuring fear of right-wing extremism. The Southern Poverty Law Center (with a tax-free bank account of $175 million) routinely floods the mailboxes of elderly rich liberals with scary solicitations conveying the impression that, unless they send a generous check to fund the SPLC’s efforts, the brownshirts will be goose-stepping down Main Street next week.
My point is that this fear is misplaced and irrational, and yet the Department of Homeland Security’s infamous “right-wing extremism” report of 2009 shows how such foolishness is taken seriously in high places. If the DHS report was directed at the Tea Party movement (as most believe), what are they afraid of? People holding rallies to protest against deficit spending? Mass opposition to a government takeover of the health-care system? A Republican electoral landslide?
Unjustified fear of “right-wing extremism” is fomented simply as a way of demonizing Republicans who, the liberals would have us believe, are on the one hand beholden to dangerous crackpots while, on the other hand, are also tacitly encouraging violent extremists. So if some nut commits a heinous crime and is then alleged to have been a Rush Limbaugh listener — vote Democrat!
Because if you don’t vote Democrat, the Republicans will take charge and then the brownshirts will be goose-stepping down Main Street next week.
It sounds silly when put in such simple terms, of course, but what exactly do the fearmongers want their audiences to fear?
If the danger is psychos with explosives, OK — let the FBI investigate and arrest them. But the fearmongers would have us believe that there is a Continuum of Hate, an uninterrupted chain of causality by which the Hutaree Militia is ultimately connected to the Republican National Committee. And it just ain’t so.
Beyond such transparent guilt-by-association smears, however, we see that the fearmongers benefit from the nebulousness of the threats with which they excite the phobias of their audience. They rely on the “ghosts of fascists past” that haunt the liberal imagination, so that a rally of people waving Gadsden flags and grumbling about taxes can easily be made to conjure up nightmares of Nuremberg in 1934.
It does little good, in protesting against such distortions, to point out the blindingly obvious fact: The dreams of the Tea Partiers — fiscal responsibility, limited government, the rule of law — are the antithesis of Nazi dreams of an all-powerful totalitarian super-state. Nor does it do much good to point out what Jonah Goldberg has explained at length, that modern liberalism owes a tremendous debt of fascism.
The Bolshevik Menace and ‘McCarthyism’
The problem is that many Americans have been emotionally conditioned – indoctrinated, in the manner Buckley described — to dread Republicans as agents of a fascist resurgence. You can trace this theme back at least to the late 1940s, when former State Department official Alger Hiss was exposed as a Communist spy. To conservatives, this revelation confirmed their suspicion that liberals were sympathetic to, if not actively in league with, Bolshevism. But liberals, believing Hiss innocent, reached a quite opposite conclusion: This was a witch-hunt pursued with the secret aim of bringing about an American fascism. From this divergence of belief stemmed the latter-day liberal view of America in the 1950s as gripped by dangerous “McCarthyism,” a misperception that Ann Coulter has mocked as the “Dark Night of Fascism” motif. (See Stan Evans’s masterful Blacklisted by History as a corrective to the smears of Joe McCarthy.)
Liberals refused to confront the reality of Soviet-sponsored subversion and therefore attributed malign motives to anti-Communists, most especially such Republicans as McCarthy and Richard Nixon. The true extent of Soviet efforts to influence U.S. policy was not known for decades; only with the post-Cold War release of the Venona Papers and other documents was conclusive evidence obtained, and few historians have re-examined the record in light of such revelations. (See In Denial: Historians, Communism, and Espionage by John Earl Haynes for a discussion of academia’s failure in that regard.) Thus the mythic terror of “McCarthyism” took root and grew in the liberal imagination, fostered with the aid of cultural Marxists like Theodor Adorno, such of Adorno’s liberal disciples as Richard Hofstadter, and the young leftists who took up the “Long March Through the Institutions” in the 1960s to become a dominant force in contemporary academia.
This history largely explains how, in the past half-century, the alleged witch-hunt hysteria of 1950s anti-Communism has been supplanted by a mirror-reverse of “McCarthyism”: It is now right-wingers who are to be exposed and denounced as dangers to the common good, subjected to all manner of defamation. (See, for example, how leftist Carl Salonen has mounted a smear campaign against Professor Donald Douglas.) And the ubiquitous liberal perception of right-wing menace is why a publication like the National Interest commissions Ian Kershaw, a historian of Nazi Germany, to examine the possibility of a neo-fascist resurgence.
Fearmongers therefore exploit not merely a false conception of present-day dangers — whereby law-abiding citizens who vote Republican are ludicrously portrayed as threats to public safety — but also exploit politicized misconceptions of the historic past. Liberal propagandists furthermore routinely conflate the past and present in ways calculated to demonize the Right so that, for example, anyone who advocates enforcement of U.S. immigration law can expect to be hit with a plethora of tendentiously pejorative historic comparisons: The Klan, the Know-Nothings, Japanese internment, etc.
Whatever the issue, and whatever the specifics of the accusation, the underlying message is always the same: Beware the Danger of the Right!
Marcuse at the Multiplex
What academia teaches, Hollywood preaches, and the emotional power of the fearmongers’ messages find emotional resonance with those raised in the cinematic congregation and in the living-room pews that surround the TV altar. Moralistic themes of heroic resistance to right-wing oppression pervade the output of the entertainment industry. Occasionally the message is specific and explicit (e.g., Good Night and Good Luck) but more often it is contextual and nearly subliminal. Consider, for example, the 1999 Oscar-winner American Beauty, which depicts the middle-class family as a cauldron of harmful repression and suburbia as a place where homophobic conflict incites a Marine colonel to murder. It’s a wonder that the estates of Adorno and Herbert Marcuse didn’t sue the studio for copyright infringement.
Or consider another example: Tom Clancy’s 1991 novel The Sum of All Fears was a Cold War thriller in which German communists conspired with Palestinian radicals to commit thermonuclear terrorism. As imaginatively dramatic as the plot was, Clancy’s story was rooted in a couple of basic realities: First, the Red Army Faction (Baader-Meinhof Gang), a German Marxist terror group; and second, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a left-wing PLO faction that drew inspiration from Che Guevara.
One could plausibly imagine a basis of collaboration between Baader-Meinhof and the PFLP, and if the collapse of the Soviet Union and the passage of more than a decade required some updating of Clancy’s plot for a 2002 movie, nothing could justify what the producers actually did in the cinematic adaptation: Creating from whole cloth a new villain, “an evil billionaire neo-Nazi mastermind intent on leading the Fourth Reich to world conquest,” to borrow Steve Sailer’s description. That this bizarre distortion of Clancy’s plot was reportedly made under pressure from Muslim activists (specifically CAIR) was widely noted, but why on earth make the fictive villain a neo-Nazi and not, for example, some sort of rogue communist from North Korea or China or even from the erstwhile Soviet empire?
The most obvious answer to that question is that Hollywood liberals instinctively expect to find villains on the Right, not the Left. Just as the killer in American Beauty must be a homophobic Marine — and not creepy teen-obsessed Lester Burnham – then quite obviously the villain of a terrorism thriller must be a Nazi, not a Communist.
So deeply embedded is this worldview in the liberal mind, and so widespread is the influence of liberalism, that many of its manifestations go unnoticed. It is usually only when this Dark Night of Fascism theme spills over into the daily political headlines that anyone bothers to examine it, as for example when Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse invoked Richard Hofstadter during the health-care debate (see “Political Psychosis,” The American Spectator, Dec. 21, 2009). Likewise we notice when Bill Keller, whose newspaper has never shown much interest in probing President Obama’s associations with Reverend Wright or Bill Ayers, demands that Republican presidential candidates be interrogated about their religious faith.
It is those on the Right whose secret beliefs must be exposed, you see, because the Right is automatically presumed to be dangerous.
The 20th Brumaire of Modern Liberalism
What is shocking, however, is to see how this liberal worldview has suffused its way even into the minds of Republicans. Pete Da Tech Guy was surprised when one of his friends “declared he was afraid of Rick Perry because of his fundamentalist belief in the Bible (specifically on evolution). He argued that if he doesn’t believe in Evolution what OTHER science does he not believe in?” To which Pete responded: “Unemployment is 9.1%, the economy is in the tank and you’re worried about a candidate’s position on how old the planet is?”
You really must read the whole thing — it’s one of Pete’s best-ever posts — but you see how this incident exemplifies the success of liberal fear-mongering: Millions of Americans, including Pete’s Republican friend, have become convinced that a skeptical stance toward Darwinism is a bellwether indicator of . . . well, what exactly?
Though tempted to leave that question dangling, to demand that liberals explain why belief in evolution should be a sine qua non of participation in American political life, I will endeavor to provide an answer.
Ever since the French Revolution, the Left has presented itself as the political expression of Scientific Progress. One may trace a straight line from La Fête de la Raison of the 20th Brumaire to the “scientific socialism” of Marx, through the pragmatist philosophy of the Progressives, right on down to the present-day global warming “consensus” and those who insist that skepticism toward Darwinism must be strenuously prohibited in public schools.
If science and progress are good things — who can believe otherwise? — and liberals cast themselves as proponents of these good things, does it not logically follow that those who oppose liberalism might do so because of some hidden animosity toward science and progress? And how better to expose the secret motives of conservatives than to demonstrate that the GOP presidential candidates are Bible-thumping fundamentalist holy rollers who harbor heretical disbelief toward the Gospel of Darwin?
Having already passed the 2,000-word mark, I will spare the reader my explanation of why liberals are so fanatically devoted to the promulgation of evolutionary theory. As interesting as that discussion would be in terms of understanding the liberal worldview, I will content myself to repeat Chesterton’s droll aphorism: “My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.”
What is at issue in our contemporary political debate, as Pete told his friend, is not the age of dinosaur bones or the truth of Genesis, but rather whether liberal policies are effective and beneficial. And if you oppose liberal policies, then what you ask of a Republican presidential candidate is simple: Do you oppose liberalism and can you beat Obama?
The fact that Bill Keller wants to ask other questions — with the transparent intent of embarrassing and discrediting Republicans — tells us only one thing: Bill Keller is a liberal.
But you didn’t need a 2,000-word essay to tell you that, did you? And now, for your enjoyment, the New York Times Correction of the Day:
Correction: August 27, 2011
Because of an editing error, an essay on Page 11 this weekend, about the religious beliefs of Republican presidential candidates, misstates the proportion of Americans who believe that extraterrestrials live among us. It is about a third, not a majority. The essay also erroneously includes Rick Santorum among politicians affiliated with evangelical Christianity. Mr. Santorum is Catholic.
Liberals: Their facts may be wrong, but you can’t dispute their beliefs.
Gibson Competitor is Democratic Donor; Uses Same Wood, Experienced No Federal Raids
Via Andrew Lawton at Landmark Report:
One of Gibson’s leading competitors is C.F. Martin & Company. The C.E.O., Chris Martin IV, is a long-time Democratic supporter, with $35,400 in contributions to Democratic candidates and the DNC over the past couple of elections (though, to be fair, he did donate a whopping $750 to Republican Congressmen in the 90s.) According to C.F. Martin’s catalog, several of their guitars contain “East Indian Rosewood.” In case you were wondering, that is the exact same wood in at least ten of Gibson’s guitars.
If true, it add another piece to an increasingly disturbing puzzle.
You can listen to Gibson CEO (and Republican supporter) Henry E. Juszkiewicz’s interview with Dana Loesch here.
You can listen to the collective music world’s outcry over this seemingly partisan witch hunt being conducted by The Man here.
Cowards all.
One of Gibson’s leading competitors is C.F. Martin & Company. The C.E.O., Chris Martin IV, is a long-time Democratic supporter, with $35,400 in contributions to Democratic candidates and the DNC over the past couple of elections (though, to be fair, he did donate a whopping $750 to Republican Congressmen in the 90s.) According to C.F. Martin’s catalog, several of their guitars contain “East Indian Rosewood.” In case you were wondering, that is the exact same wood in at least ten of Gibson’s guitars.
If true, it add another piece to an increasingly disturbing puzzle.
You can listen to Gibson CEO (and Republican supporter) Henry E. Juszkiewicz’s interview with Dana Loesch here.
You can listen to the collective music world’s outcry over this seemingly partisan witch hunt being conducted by The Man here.
Cowards all.
The Islamic Supremacist Propaganda Machine Cranks Out Another ''Islamophobia'' Report
“Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America,” from the Center for American Progress is just the latest in an ever-lengthening string of markedly similar “exposés” of so-called “Islamphobes.” Each purports to show that the anti-Sharia movement in America is a sinister cabal of well-funded, dishonest hacks stirring up hate against innocent Muslims in order to profit from it. Each has been highly distorted and markedly unfair, twisting the facts and cooking the data in order not to enlighten but to manipulate, not to educate but to propagandize.
Just in recent months there have been two other reports, both almost identical in substance to “Fear, Inc.”: the far-Left Southern Poverty Law Center’s “Jihad Against Islam” and the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations’ “Same Hate, New Target: Islamophobia and Its Impact in the United States.” Each of these is lavishly produced, printed on glossy paper and full of colorful illustrations. With the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in the midst of a full-scale, years-long campaign at the United Nations to compel the West to criminalize any honest discussion of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to recruit and motivate terrorists, it would be useful to know who is funding these slickly produced reports; but, true to form, the mainstream media instead glosses over the radical and genuinely sinister ties of the organizations that produced them, and repeats their agitprop as if it were fact.
But it isn’t. In what follows I must, for reasons of time, limit myself largely to responding to the report’s attacks on me; however, the “Fear, Inc.” attacks on my colleagues and others doing similar work are no more substantive or less manipulative and propagandistic.
The misinformation starts on the first page, when the “Fear, Inc.” authors call me “one of the anti-Muslim misinformation scholars we profile in this report.” The term “anti-Muslim” is immediate evidence of the manipulative, propagandistic nature of this report: my work, and the work of the other scholars and activists demonized in “Fear, Inc.,” has never been against Muslims in the aggregate or any people as such, but rather against an ideology that denies the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people. In fact, years ago at Jihad Watch I had an exchange with an English convert to Islam. I said: “I would like nothing better than a flowering, a renaissance, in the Muslim world, including full equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc.” Is all that “anti-Muslim”? My correspondent thought so. He responded: “So, you would like to see us ditch much of our religion and, thereby, become non-Muslims.”
In other words, he saw a call for equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies, including freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, and equal employment opportunities, as a challenge to his religion. To the extent that they are, these facts have to be confronted by both Muslims and non-Muslims. But it is not “anti-Muslim” to wish freedom of conscience and equality of rights on the Islamic world — quite the contrary.
The report also contains a – by now obligatory – lengthy excursus on Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik: “While these bloggers and pundits were not responsible for Breivik’s deadly attacks, their writings on Islam and multiculturalism appear to have helped create a world view, held by this lone Norwegian gunman, that sees Islam as at war with the West and the West needing to be defended.” While granting that we are not responsible for Breivik’s acts, the report also takes pains to point out that “Robert Spencer and his blog were cited 162 times in the nearly 1,500-page manifesto of Anders Breivik, the confessed Norway terrorist who claimed responsibility for killing 76 people, mostly youths.” Not surprisingly, it doesn’t mention that I have never sanctioned or justified violence, or that Breivik was plotting violence in the 1990s, before I had published anything about Islam, or that he complained that I was not recommending violence, or that he recommended making common cause with jihadists, which I would never do – indicating that his “manifesto” is actually ideologically incoherent, and not a legitimate counter-jihad document at all. These facts are not mentioned in “Fear, Inc.,” because they would interfere with its propagandistic agenda.
As for the claim that Breivik committed his murders because of the worldview we had created that “sees Islam at war with the West,” “Fear, Inc.” is also silent about the many Muslims who have declared that they are indeed at war with the West, in the name of Islam. Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said: “Have no doubt… Allah willing, Islam will conquer what? It will conquer all the mountain tops of the world.” CAIR cofounder and longtime Board chairman Omar Ahmad said in 1998: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.” (He now denies saying this, but the original reporter sticks by her story.) The prominent American Muslim leader Siraj Wahhaj said in 2002: “If only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.” The most influential Islamic cleric in the world today, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, has said: “Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and victor, after being expelled from it twice.”
True to form for these “Islamophobia” reports, “Fear, Inc.” ignores such statements and many others like them, attempting to create the impression that the only ones responsible for the idea that Islam is “at war with the West” are the “Islamophobes.”
Without offering any substantive refutation, “Fear, Inc.” dismisses as “inaccurate and perverse” my statement that Islam is “the only religion in the world that has a developed doctrine, theology and legal system that mandates violence against unbelievers and mandates that Muslims must wage war in order to establish the hegemony of the Islamic social order all over the world.” What is “inaccurate and perverse” is the report’s denial of this, since it is a matter of objective verification that all the mainstream Islamic sects and schools of Islamic jurisprudence do indeed teach that the Islamic umma must wage war against unbelievers and subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law. The report does not and cannot produce any evidence that Islam does not contain sects and schools that teach this.
Most of what “Fear, Inc.” says about me is just name-calling, but it makes an attempt at substance with this: “Spencer’s views on Islam—and his credibility in discussing Islam at all—are challenged by scholars at his own alma mater. He has ‘no academic training in Islamic studies whatsoever,’ according to Islamic scholar Carl W. Ernst, Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies and Director of the Carolina Center for the Study of the Middle East and Muslim Civilizations at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Instead, Professor Ernst says Spencer selectively uses textual, religious evidence to mainstream the claim that ‘Islam is not a religion of peace.’ Indeed, Spencer gives misplaced credence to the ‘Sharia threat’ argument that is then mainstreamed by the Islamophobia network.”
Ernst’s dismissal of my work on the basis of my having “no academic training in Islamic studies whatsoever,” besides being false, is completely void of substance: the determination of whether or not one’s work is accurate is not decided by the number of one’s degrees, but by the nature of the work itself. What’s more, Ernst’s claim is especially laughable given the ideological dominance of the far-Left Middle East Studies Association (MESA) among academics in this field today, such that dissenting voices are seldom, if ever, heard. Ernst’s own objectivity, moreover, is in severe doubt after he flew to Tehran in December 2008 to accept an award from Iran’s anti-Semitic, genocide-minded Islamic supremacist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Another compromised authority that “Fear, Inc.” cites is Charles Johnson, the “Little Green Footballs” blogger who several years ago moved from the right to the hard Left, betraying his former friends and posting vicious and arguably libelous false charges about them. For “Fear, Inc.,” Johnson’s blog is “popular” and “right-leaning,” when in fact it is no longer either one.
“Fear, Inc.” likewise trumpets the 2004 Amman Message as a “Sharia-based condemnation of violence from the world’s leading Islamic authorities.” The report deceptively fails to mention, however, that the Amman Message forbids Muslim-on-Muslim violence based on takfir, or declarations by one Muslim group that another is apostate. The Amman Message’s three points, mentioned in “Fear, Inc.,” do not address violence or non-violent jihad activity against non-Muslims at all, and the Amman Message’s website actually endorses an undefined “legitimate jihad.”
That is indicative of the dishonesty and one-sidedness of this report. The chief indication of that dishonesty is the wildly misleading presentation of financial data – making the sums involved appear much greater than they actually were by lumping together donations given to disparate organizations over a period of many years. When examined closely, the sums involved are actually far lower than those regularly received by Leftist and Islamic supremacist groups such as the ones that have produced the recent “Islamophobia” reports. Hamas-linked CAIR just announced today that it had almost reached its goal of raising $650,000 during Ramadan. I have never received that kind of support for Jihad Watch during any comparable period of time.
An honest presentation about “Islamophobia” would address the American people’s reasonable concern about the continuing series of violent acts committed by Muslims in the name of Islam, and outline ways in which the Muslim community could lessen suspicion against Muslims by cooperating fully and honestly with law enforcement anti-terror activities. But instead, “Fear, Inc.” is designed to portray Muslims as victims and demonize all those who stand in the way of the misogynistic and unjust agenda of the Islamic jihad, whether advanced by violent or non-violent means. As such, it is simply an instrument of that jihad.
The war book is ready
YNet reports that we were a lot closer to war last weekend than most Israelis realize. The war book is ready.
When Defense Minister Ehud Barak arrived at the Defense Ministry Headquarters’ meeting room last Saturday, a thick war book titled “Operation South” was already awaiting his approval on his desk. In those hours, Israel was on the verge of embarking on war in the Gaza Strip.
The book did not pertain to a limited operation. The selected targets would have certainly prompted a major flare-up, including difficult regional implications. Just like in Operation Cast Lead, the political leadership granted immunity to no one in the Strip, regardless of his position or stature.
The detailed plans – the targets, scope, power and timing – would have left Hamas no breathing space and time to debate its response. It would have gone for the jackpot, right away. Indeed, Israel’s war plan included preparations for massive rocket fire from Gaza, including long-range missiles aimed at central Israel in general, and at Tel Aviv in particular.
Last weekend, the General Staff Headquarters looked like on the eve of war. Officials were working around the clock and sleeping in their offices. While formulating the plans, top officials recalled the curse of arrogance of the Second Lebanon War. Back then, the decision to launch a war was taken without sufficient preparation. The military and political leadership decided to deliver a blow, immediately, without taking into account the implications, the enemy’s response, the home front’s condition and the ability to counter rocket barrages. This time around, a full, detailed plan was drafted; it also included the IDF Home Front Command’s deployment. Only then was the scheme presented to the political echelon.
Another lesson learned from the miserable confrontation vis-Ã -vis Hezbollah is to start such assaults with great fire power, in order to minimize as much as is possible the home front’s suffering. This lesson was already implemented in Operation Cast Lead; in other words, the power utilized during Cast Lead was to constitute the starting point of the next operation.
So what happened? Why didn't we go to war? You can probably guess - fear of how it would look with the UN vote coming up next month. My own view is that we are putting way too much emphasis on a UN vote that is largely meaningless. But it seems like the political echelon is determined to sit pat and absorb the rockets (yes, there were more last night) at least until the UN vote passes. Unless Tel Aviv is hit.
Read the whole thing.
When Defense Minister Ehud Barak arrived at the Defense Ministry Headquarters’ meeting room last Saturday, a thick war book titled “Operation South” was already awaiting his approval on his desk. In those hours, Israel was on the verge of embarking on war in the Gaza Strip.
The book did not pertain to a limited operation. The selected targets would have certainly prompted a major flare-up, including difficult regional implications. Just like in Operation Cast Lead, the political leadership granted immunity to no one in the Strip, regardless of his position or stature.
The detailed plans – the targets, scope, power and timing – would have left Hamas no breathing space and time to debate its response. It would have gone for the jackpot, right away. Indeed, Israel’s war plan included preparations for massive rocket fire from Gaza, including long-range missiles aimed at central Israel in general, and at Tel Aviv in particular.
Last weekend, the General Staff Headquarters looked like on the eve of war. Officials were working around the clock and sleeping in their offices. While formulating the plans, top officials recalled the curse of arrogance of the Second Lebanon War. Back then, the decision to launch a war was taken without sufficient preparation. The military and political leadership decided to deliver a blow, immediately, without taking into account the implications, the enemy’s response, the home front’s condition and the ability to counter rocket barrages. This time around, a full, detailed plan was drafted; it also included the IDF Home Front Command’s deployment. Only then was the scheme presented to the political echelon.
Another lesson learned from the miserable confrontation vis-Ã -vis Hezbollah is to start such assaults with great fire power, in order to minimize as much as is possible the home front’s suffering. This lesson was already implemented in Operation Cast Lead; in other words, the power utilized during Cast Lead was to constitute the starting point of the next operation.
So what happened? Why didn't we go to war? You can probably guess - fear of how it would look with the UN vote coming up next month. My own view is that we are putting way too much emphasis on a UN vote that is largely meaningless. But it seems like the political echelon is determined to sit pat and absorb the rockets (yes, there were more last night) at least until the UN vote passes. Unless Tel Aviv is hit.
Read the whole thing.
On verge of Gaza war
Special: Israel was on verge of launching major Gaza operation, but Hamas blinked
Alex Fishman Published: 08.26.11, 22:39 / Israel News
When Defense Minister Ehud Barak arrived at the Defense Ministry Headquarters’ meeting room last Saturday, a thick war book titled “Operation South” was already awaiting his approval on his desk. In those hours, Israel was on the verge of embarking on war in the Gaza Strip.
The book did not pertain to a limited operation. The selected targets would have certainly prompted a major flare-up, including difficult regional implications. Just like in Operation Cast Lead, the political leadership granted immunity to no one in the Strip, regardless of his position or stature.
The detailed plans – the targets, scope, power and timing – would have left Hamas no breathing space and time to debate its response. It would have gone for the jackpot, right away. Indeed, Israel’s war plan included preparations for massive rocket fire from Gaza, including long-range missiles aimed at central Israel in general, and at Tel Aviv in particular.
Last weekend, the General Staff Headquarters looked like on the eve of war. Officials were working around the clock and sleeping in their offices. While formulating the plans, top officials recalled the curse of arrogance of the Second Lebanon War. Back then, the decision to launch a war was taken without sufficient preparation. The military and political leadership decided to deliver a blow, immediately, without taking into account the implications, the enemy’s response, the home front’s condition and the ability to counter rocket barrages. This time around, a full, detailed plan was drafted; it also included the IDF Home Front Command’s deployment. Only then was the scheme presented to the political echelon.
Another lesson learned from the miserable confrontation vis-Ã -vis Hezbollah is to start such assaults with great fire power, in order to minimize as much as is possible the home front’s suffering. This lesson was already implemented in Operation Cast Lead; in other words, the power utilized during Cast Lead was to constitute the starting point of the next operation.
Countdown begins
Most of Israel’s regular army was to be enlisted, at one point or another, for the operation. Hence, last Saturday all regular army units were placed on alert. Air Force squadrons undertook their final preparations. The time given to the army for preparations also gave international parties – namely the United States and Egypt – time to examine alternatives to the war.
Thursday afternoon, a few hours after the terror offensive on the road leading to Eilat, officials started to formulate the operational doctrine. At that point, the targets were only Islamic Jihad and the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC.) Hamas was not yet a clear target, with the exception of several symbolic hits meant to signal to the group that it holds the responsibility to prevent attacks from the Strip.
A short while after the PRC’s top brass was eliminated by the IDF in a surgical strike, Hamas’ entire leadership, both military and political, disappeared to various hideouts. They quickly realized where Israel’s response was headed to; hence, junior spokesmen were sent to address the cameras.
The next phase of Israel’s operation included the extension of the assault to Hamas as well. The assumption was that Hamas’ chiefs must have been aware of the PRC terror cell that headed to the Sinai to carry out attacks from there. A week before the Eilat offensive, PRC terrorists fired Grad Missiles at Kiryat Gat, and Hamas proceeded to detain the shooters, further demonstrating that it is deeply familiar with what goes on among “rogue groups” in Gaza.
In retrospect it turned out that not everything works by the book: To the great amazement of Israel’s experts, Hamas was truly surprised by the Eilat-area attacks.
Zero hour for the large, comprehensive facet of the operation was set. The countdown began. The manpower numbers at some units were complemented with reservists. Less than 24 hours remained before a war broke out. Yet then, Saturday night, a diplomatic opportunity to end the escalation emerged. Hamas initiated a ceasefire.
Hamas doesn’t want war
Officials quickly discovered that Hamas was embarrassed and confused by the fact that someone in the organization assumed responsibility for ending the lull and firing rockets at Ofakim and Beersheba that caused casualties. As it turned out, Hamas did not fire the rockets, and even sent police officers in an attempt to curb the shooters. Hamas heads directly approached the Americans and Egyptians and sought a ceasefire. Israel was aware of these inquiries virtually in real time.
Hamas chiefs did not plan or want this confrontation; not now. They were concerned about being blamed that they are pulling the rug from under Mahmoud Abbas ahead of the September independence bid. Moreover, the economic situation in Gaza is worsening. The government is having trouble paying salaries, with the amount of money pouring into the Strip at this time being a fraction of past fund transfers.
At this time, officials in the Strip need calm and support from Cairo in the contacts on the Gilad Shalit swap. Hamas also fears that Egypt would close the Rafah Crossing. Furthermore, Hamas leaders in Gaza realized that what Israel characterized as a “disproportional response” to the rocket fire was merely the groundwork for a large-scale operation.
Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh dared leave his hideout only on Tuesday, some 24 hours after the ceasefire. Top Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders are still huddled in bomb shelters, for good reason apparently. On Wednesday, an Islamic Jihad member was killed. Another one was assassinated early Thursday. This pattern will continue. The message in the wake of the Eilat-area offensive is unequivocal: Pinpoint eliminations are back, even if the price of each surgical strike is a night of mortar shells and Grad rockets aimed at southern Israel.
Shin Bet supports op
Saturday night, the Egyptians and Americans asked Israel to adhere to the ceasefire and refrain from launching a military campaign. Simultaneously, Egypt’s supreme military council made efforts to curb the anti-Israel wave sweeping the streets. If you act aggressively, the Egyptians told Israel, we would not be able to mediate vis-Ã -vis Hamas and we may not be able to contain the masses who seek to target Israeli symbols in Cairo.
During last weekend’s discussions, Israel’s forum of top eight government ministers did not only address the fears of collapsed ties with Egypt. They also spoke of the concern that a military operation would bring Israel into September in an inferior position, with states currently sitting on the fence opting to support the Palestinians. Officials also spoke of the shaky state of the Jordanian regime, which may be further destabilized as result of great shocks in Gaza. They also discussed further deterioration in our relationship with Turkey, which has become Gaza’ patron.
There was no consensus among participants in the meeting. The Shin Bet, for example, supported a military operation, despite all the diplomatic considerations, and promised to deliver the targets. However, some military officials noted that Hamas did not fire during the Gaza escalation. This was the first time the group’s facilities were hit, its people were killed, yet it held its fire. Several officers said this constituted clear proof that our deterrence is still stable.
And so, by midweek the army lowered its alert level, although it was immediately raised again; one warning elapsed but others emerged. Wednesday morning, inspectors cleared the Ashdod beach. Warnings about planned suicide attacks remerged. Meanwhile, The Shin Bet detained some 150 Hamas members, including political activists and parliamentarians, in the Hebron region early last week. This was characterized as the biggest arrest operation, in one night, since the peak of the second Intifada in 2002.
As September approaches, the IDF is being stretched beyond its means, and there will apparently be no escaping the need to call up reservists. Our leadership is navigating through a minefield. Just like we were on the verge of war Saturday night, with most of the public being completely oblivious to the unfolding drama, it can happen again tomorrow morning. The war book is ready.
Alex Fishman Published: 08.26.11, 22:39 / Israel News
When Defense Minister Ehud Barak arrived at the Defense Ministry Headquarters’ meeting room last Saturday, a thick war book titled “Operation South” was already awaiting his approval on his desk. In those hours, Israel was on the verge of embarking on war in the Gaza Strip.
The book did not pertain to a limited operation. The selected targets would have certainly prompted a major flare-up, including difficult regional implications. Just like in Operation Cast Lead, the political leadership granted immunity to no one in the Strip, regardless of his position or stature.
The detailed plans – the targets, scope, power and timing – would have left Hamas no breathing space and time to debate its response. It would have gone for the jackpot, right away. Indeed, Israel’s war plan included preparations for massive rocket fire from Gaza, including long-range missiles aimed at central Israel in general, and at Tel Aviv in particular.
Last weekend, the General Staff Headquarters looked like on the eve of war. Officials were working around the clock and sleeping in their offices. While formulating the plans, top officials recalled the curse of arrogance of the Second Lebanon War. Back then, the decision to launch a war was taken without sufficient preparation. The military and political leadership decided to deliver a blow, immediately, without taking into account the implications, the enemy’s response, the home front’s condition and the ability to counter rocket barrages. This time around, a full, detailed plan was drafted; it also included the IDF Home Front Command’s deployment. Only then was the scheme presented to the political echelon.
Another lesson learned from the miserable confrontation vis-Ã -vis Hezbollah is to start such assaults with great fire power, in order to minimize as much as is possible the home front’s suffering. This lesson was already implemented in Operation Cast Lead; in other words, the power utilized during Cast Lead was to constitute the starting point of the next operation.
Countdown begins
Most of Israel’s regular army was to be enlisted, at one point or another, for the operation. Hence, last Saturday all regular army units were placed on alert. Air Force squadrons undertook their final preparations. The time given to the army for preparations also gave international parties – namely the United States and Egypt – time to examine alternatives to the war.
Thursday afternoon, a few hours after the terror offensive on the road leading to Eilat, officials started to formulate the operational doctrine. At that point, the targets were only Islamic Jihad and the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC.) Hamas was not yet a clear target, with the exception of several symbolic hits meant to signal to the group that it holds the responsibility to prevent attacks from the Strip.
A short while after the PRC’s top brass was eliminated by the IDF in a surgical strike, Hamas’ entire leadership, both military and political, disappeared to various hideouts. They quickly realized where Israel’s response was headed to; hence, junior spokesmen were sent to address the cameras.
The next phase of Israel’s operation included the extension of the assault to Hamas as well. The assumption was that Hamas’ chiefs must have been aware of the PRC terror cell that headed to the Sinai to carry out attacks from there. A week before the Eilat offensive, PRC terrorists fired Grad Missiles at Kiryat Gat, and Hamas proceeded to detain the shooters, further demonstrating that it is deeply familiar with what goes on among “rogue groups” in Gaza.
In retrospect it turned out that not everything works by the book: To the great amazement of Israel’s experts, Hamas was truly surprised by the Eilat-area attacks.
Zero hour for the large, comprehensive facet of the operation was set. The countdown began. The manpower numbers at some units were complemented with reservists. Less than 24 hours remained before a war broke out. Yet then, Saturday night, a diplomatic opportunity to end the escalation emerged. Hamas initiated a ceasefire.
Hamas doesn’t want war
Officials quickly discovered that Hamas was embarrassed and confused by the fact that someone in the organization assumed responsibility for ending the lull and firing rockets at Ofakim and Beersheba that caused casualties. As it turned out, Hamas did not fire the rockets, and even sent police officers in an attempt to curb the shooters. Hamas heads directly approached the Americans and Egyptians and sought a ceasefire. Israel was aware of these inquiries virtually in real time.
Hamas chiefs did not plan or want this confrontation; not now. They were concerned about being blamed that they are pulling the rug from under Mahmoud Abbas ahead of the September independence bid. Moreover, the economic situation in Gaza is worsening. The government is having trouble paying salaries, with the amount of money pouring into the Strip at this time being a fraction of past fund transfers.
At this time, officials in the Strip need calm and support from Cairo in the contacts on the Gilad Shalit swap. Hamas also fears that Egypt would close the Rafah Crossing. Furthermore, Hamas leaders in Gaza realized that what Israel characterized as a “disproportional response” to the rocket fire was merely the groundwork for a large-scale operation.
Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh dared leave his hideout only on Tuesday, some 24 hours after the ceasefire. Top Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders are still huddled in bomb shelters, for good reason apparently. On Wednesday, an Islamic Jihad member was killed. Another one was assassinated early Thursday. This pattern will continue. The message in the wake of the Eilat-area offensive is unequivocal: Pinpoint eliminations are back, even if the price of each surgical strike is a night of mortar shells and Grad rockets aimed at southern Israel.
Shin Bet supports op
Saturday night, the Egyptians and Americans asked Israel to adhere to the ceasefire and refrain from launching a military campaign. Simultaneously, Egypt’s supreme military council made efforts to curb the anti-Israel wave sweeping the streets. If you act aggressively, the Egyptians told Israel, we would not be able to mediate vis-Ã -vis Hamas and we may not be able to contain the masses who seek to target Israeli symbols in Cairo.
During last weekend’s discussions, Israel’s forum of top eight government ministers did not only address the fears of collapsed ties with Egypt. They also spoke of the concern that a military operation would bring Israel into September in an inferior position, with states currently sitting on the fence opting to support the Palestinians. Officials also spoke of the shaky state of the Jordanian regime, which may be further destabilized as result of great shocks in Gaza. They also discussed further deterioration in our relationship with Turkey, which has become Gaza’ patron.
There was no consensus among participants in the meeting. The Shin Bet, for example, supported a military operation, despite all the diplomatic considerations, and promised to deliver the targets. However, some military officials noted that Hamas did not fire during the Gaza escalation. This was the first time the group’s facilities were hit, its people were killed, yet it held its fire. Several officers said this constituted clear proof that our deterrence is still stable.
And so, by midweek the army lowered its alert level, although it was immediately raised again; one warning elapsed but others emerged. Wednesday morning, inspectors cleared the Ashdod beach. Warnings about planned suicide attacks remerged. Meanwhile, The Shin Bet detained some 150 Hamas members, including political activists and parliamentarians, in the Hebron region early last week. This was characterized as the biggest arrest operation, in one night, since the peak of the second Intifada in 2002.
As September approaches, the IDF is being stretched beyond its means, and there will apparently be no escaping the need to call up reservists. Our leadership is navigating through a minefield. Just like we were on the verge of war Saturday night, with most of the public being completely oblivious to the unfolding drama, it can happen again tomorrow morning. The war book is ready.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)