The David Project

The David Project Center for Jewish Leadership of the Judeo-Christian Alliance has been working to confront the dishonest narrative offered by the leaders of mainline Protestant churches in the U.S. about the Arab/Israeli conflict. That narrative is hostile to Jews and to Israel, as noted here.

Dexter Van Zile, Christian Outreach Director of the David Project has written an open letter to the United Church of Christ regarding the victory of Hamas in the recent "election" in the Palestine Territories. It is a good letter and can be read here.

The fact is that the Christian left, along with the political left, have been under the delusion that the problems in the Middle-East have been the fault of Israel, and that only if Israel would agree to negotiate with the Palestinians there would finally be peace. I hope they now see that was never the case.

It's good that Hamas won

Stephen Plaut remarks in Arutz Sheva (Israel National News) that the win by Hamas can be good in that it will awaken Israel and the world as to the seriousness of the situation with the Palestinians. He points out that the whether Fatah (the PLO) or Hamas is in power is a distinction without a difference.

For months, the media were all in suspense over whether the victors in the "election" would be the Hamas terrorists or the PLO terrorists. As it turned out, Hamas evidently won the "election" by a huge majority.

The first part of the absurdity in the message daily inculcated by the Israeli political elite is that there is any significant difference between the PLO and Hamas. There is not. Both are equally dedicated to unlimited terror and violence, to genocide and the eradication of Israel in any form and in any borders. Both have conducted suicide bombings and in fact, if I am not mistaken, the PLO's terror brigades carried out more such attacks than Hamas did over the past two years. The Kassam rockets are at least as much the initiative of the PLO as they are that of Hamas. The PLO proliferates anti-Semitic propaganda as much as Hamas and is just as allied with the Hizbullah, Syria and Osama Bin-Laden.

But the Israeli establishment has been repeating the empty "we have a peace partner in the PLO" mantra for so many years that they managed to fabricate artificial suspense over the Palestinian "election". If the PLO were to win, then "Palestine" would be ruled by moderates, people with whom Israel could strike a deal, could do business - the pragmatists. Nice Nazis. Israel has been awash in speeches by politicians and mindless bumper stickers proclaiming: "We have a peace partner."

Now, this may strike you as bizarre, but I have been arguing that the best thing that could happen in the Palestinian Authority "election" would be a strong Hamas victory. Let me explain.

A strong Hamas victory is the only thing that stands a chance of forcing Israelis to open their eyes and wake up. As long as the PLO is in charge, the gigantic game of make-pretend continues. When the Hamas is marching about with costumes of suicide bombers and with its swastikas and other paraphernalia, then there can be no delusions about the Nazification of the Palestinians. It is not that the Palestinians would really be any less Nazified with the PLO in charge. It is just that the Abu Mazen-type representatives at the Potemkin negotiations, and the make-pretend respectability of the PLO hoodlum chiefs, allow the politicians and the media to continue acting as if there is a peace process.

The Hamas victory - and I wish it had been stronger - puts the lie to the game of make-pretend. No longer can any intelligent Israeli pretend that there is any way to deal with the Palestinians other than war. The only way to stop the Kassams and suicide bombers is R&D - Re-Occupation and De-Nazification. And with the Hamas in charge, everyone in Israel is forced to acknowledge this.

Hamas has only one goal - the destruction of Israel. There will be no acknowledgement by Hamas or the Palestine Authority of Israel's right to exist or any commitment to disarm. The world can delude itself that now that Hamas has power it will moderate its militantcy. That only shows its naivete about Islamic terrorists.

The fact is that Islamic radicals do not want a Jewish state in the Middle-East. They want the area to be totally Muslim. They want the area to be Judenrein (cleansed of Jews). If that term sounds familiar it was used by the Nazis in Germany.

Israelis, particularly the left, have deluded themselves into thinking that it could negotiate peace with the Palestine Authority. They felt that Mahmoud Abbas could be a "partner for peace." That was never the case. At least now with Hamas in control, Israel will realize that the only solution to peace in the Middle-East with the Palestinians is, unfortunately, going to be war.

Plaut concludes:

Leftist after leftist proclaims that the solution is to negotiate with Hamas. After all, Hamas is as "genuine" and "representative" of Palestinians as the PLO, and it even wins "elections". Some Hamas officials are encouraging the trend of self-annihilation in Israel by putting out duplicitous statements about how Hamas acknowledges that Israel exists (as an empirical reality that needs to be corrected, that is). Such statements recall Yasser Arafat's duplicitous words.

So, get ready for new calls to enter into negotiations with Hamas. We can try to persuade them to have a salad bar on the cattle cars transporting Israeli Jews, and perhaps institute recycling and free tuition at the concentration camps Hamas is seeking to build. Israeli professors will soon be wearing their Hamas lapel pins. Hamas poetry will soon be taught to Israeli schoolchildren. Israeli schools will be screening films celebrating the heroism of Palestinian suicide bombers (like the University of Haifa screened Paradise Now this week).

And Second Shoah Now will be the fastest growing movement in Israeli society, holding mass demonstrations for peace in Rabin Square.

It is time for Israel, and the rest of the world, to realize that the Palestinians are now under the control of a group of radical Islamists who want nothing less than the destruction of Israel, and who will do what they can to achieve that, while they will deceptively hold themselves out to the world as a group that can make peace with Israel.

I also believe that Hamas' sister organization, The Islamic Brotherhood, in Egypt will eventually take over that government. Israel and the United States will have to deal with radical Islamist organizations or terror organizations in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, the Palestinian territories and Egypt. It doesn't look good for the U.S., for Western civilization, for peace, and especially not for Israel.

Awake from your slumber, O Israel.

The growth of pork

Here's a visual representation as to why we need John Shadegg as majority leader:

Up to Their Earmarks

The amount of money spent on pork barrel projects -- special state or local projects tacked onto federal legislation -- has almost tripled over the past 10 years, according to figures from the Congressional Research Service.



SOURCE: Congressional Research Service | GRAPHIC: The Washington Post - January 27, 2006

Liberals can learn gallantry from George W. Bush

Vasko Kohlmayer at the American Thinker describes how George W. Bush can remain gallant and affable despite the rudeness and brusqueness shown by his liberal opponents.

A relative few presidents in this country’s history have endured the kind of vicious and spurious attacks that have been leveled against George Bush. Completely abandoning any sense of decorum or statesmanship, some of the highest officials in the Democratic Party have repeatedly called him a liar, a loser, an election-thief, an airhead, and a fraud. Regularly likened to Hitler, there have been books discussing his assassination. Recently he was even dubbed the world’s greatest terrorist by one of America’s once-prominent entertainers . There are just a few of examples. Sadly, such views are increasingly becoming part of the mainstream liberal outlook.

But no matter how malicious they have been, George Bush has always faced his critics with affability and goodwill. Even his most bitter enemies – hating him as they do – would be hard pressed to fault him for being uncivil or personally unpleasant. He displays none of the unkindness, harshness or anger one would normally expect from someone engaged in a political struggle against those who frenziedly seek his destruction.

In fact, Bush’s gallant manner has become something of a trademark. His comportment has served him well, for he has triumphed in almost every great battle he has fought, including two heatedly-fought national elections. His successes tend to drive his opponents into what can only be called spasms of political hysteria, and not knowing what else to do, they crank up even further their already outlandish rhetoric. Their near-madness is indeed a sight to behold.

What this shows is that that when you are on the side of right you do not have to be brusque to prevail. Conducting yourself with grace and dignity can in itself have a devastating effect. Insults and vituperation are altogether unnecessary. Quite to the contrary – geniality and personal warmth further augment the effectiveness of your words and actions.

Read more.

What would Jack Bauer do?

What Would Jack Bauer Do?
By Pat Buchanan

Ex-President Palmer had saved Jack Bauer's life.

The Chinese wanted agent Bauer extradited to execute him for the killing of their Los Angeles consul, gunned down in a crossfire between Chinese security and Bauer's Counter-Terrorism Unit team that had penetrated the consulate on an espionage mission.

Palmer, though out of office, conspired in a CTU scheme where Jack would appear dead, to the satisfaction of the duped Chinese, and be sent to Mexico with a fake identity.

As this year's series of Fox's "24" opened Sunday, President Palmer is shot through an office window and assassinated. Word reaches Bauer, working in the California oil patch.

Emotional at the death of the president he loved, for whom he had often risked his life, Jack returns. He is intercepted and almost killed by the team that murdered Palmer. Wounding the leader of the terrorists, Bauer interrogates him, warning the bleeding man he will die unless Bauer helps him get to a hospital. The terrorist talks.

After he spills all his information, Bauer starts to walk away. The terrorist demands to be taken to the hospital.

Were you the one who shot President Palmer? Bauer asks. Yes, replies the wounded terrorist, in agony on the floor. Bauer stares at him for two seconds -- then shoots him.

It is a Jack Bauer moment, and all addicted to "24" knew what would happen to that assassin. For Bauer is a take-no-prisoners patriot who puts love of country and loyalty to friends first, and fights by his own rules. To Jack Bauer, the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.

What is the appeal of "24"?

It is the fastest-paced, most exciting TV out there. But at bottom, the appeal is that, as in the Westerns of old and "Dirty Harry" movies of the 1970s, Jack Bauer is a flawed but good man in a struggle against evil, who is there to see that his loved ones are secure and justice is done. To Jack Bauer, as to Clint Eastwood's Detective "Dirty Harry" Callahan, vigilante justice is not only preferable to no justice at all, it is the best kind. Evil men should get what they deserve, without legal complications.

"24" satisfies the innate demand in all of us that, the law aside, evil should be punished and justice done.

That the audience for "24" is so loyal and large should tell us something about America and our divisions over the war we are in.

For weeks, Democrats and their media allies have been on Bush's case for using the National Security Agency to intercept, without warrant, phone calls and e-mails to terror suspects abroad. Before that, Bush was charged with using secret detention centers in Eastern Europe to interrogate suspects. Before that, the military was accused of abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and Afghanistan. Before that, the Justice Department was charged with violating the civil rights of Jose Padilla and the Shoe-bomber.

Bush thus stands accused of violating the Geneva Convention on treatment of prisoners of war, ignoring constitutional protections of U.S. citizens, and violating international agreements prohibiting torture and the "rendition" of prisoners to countries where torture is practiced.

Where do the American people stand?

The left may be right on the law, but the people seem to be standing by Bush. Believing the character of this war, where the enemy's preferred tactic is to slaughter civilians with terror bombings, people seem to agree that we have to follow Jack Bauer's rules, not ACLU rules.

Yet one senses that Americans are conflicted. We want to think of ourselves as decent people who fight wars honorably. But we believe the enemies of 9-11 are so evil, so depraved, they forfeit the right to be treated honorably. And while we believe in constitutional rights, human rights, civil rights, Miranda warnings and all that, we also believe in winning our wars. For without victory in the war on terror, freedom may not survive.

"Success alone justifies war," said Von Moltke, as Germany prepared to violate Belgium's neutrality to outflank France in 1914. Americans appear to believe that, too.

President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and blockaded Southern ports, without congressional authorization. President Wilson locked up Eugene V. Debs in World War I and never let him out. FDR interned 110,000 Japanese and Japanese-Americans in relocation camps, in a wartime act of racial profiling approved by the Supreme Court. Truman dropped atom bombs on defenseless cities, killing 100,000 women and children. Yet all are judged by liberal historians to be great or near-great presidents.

Now, Jack Bauer does not exist, and "24" is made-for-TV escapist entertainment. As we cheer or laugh out loud at his daring exploits, however, one wonders what liberal Democrats of the ACLU variety would do to a real-life Jack Bauer?

My guess: Put him in Leavenworth for life. But President Palmer knew his value, because President Palmer knew the real world.

Poor People Get Hammered by Tax Increases

By Dick McDonald
The Right Scale

In a tease to an IRS editorial article , the NYT states:

"Tax policy during the Bush years has greatly favored rich taxpayers at the ultimate expense of the poor."

The tragedy of this statement is that it is repeated so often by Democrats and left-wing socialists in the MSM that even those who know better let the propagandists slide. Why dispute a leftist myth so ingrained in our literature and dialogue as to be the bedrock used to sway people to vote for Democrats. Strange thing is that most people in America are not "rich". The "rich" are in the minority. So how is it that Republicans can get elected at all?

The answer to that question is just plain logic. Most citizens have come to realize that the rich have all the money they need. They really don't need a tax cut. The poor need for the "rich" to get a tax cut. That's right, the poor need the rich to get a tax cut so they will take that extra money and invest it the economy to make more and better jobs for "poor people".

Poor people get hammered when government raises taxes. You see that means the rich don't have the money to invest and grow jobs and the economy. As a result,the first casualties of tax increases are the poor. This simple fact has come home to the vast majority of Americans who have seen their lives improve during "tax-cutting" administrations. Instinctively, if not rationally they have come to realize the left's mantra "at the expense of the poor" is purely that; a mantra of empty logic.

When citizens are freed from the socialist myth that government is the answer, the economy can soar. Government does not make money when people pay higher taxes, the government never makes money; it merely redistributes it in accordance with the prevailing opinions of special interest groups. Now if money is invested in the economy rather in the government, real growth and return is realized; and the socialist promise of full employment is attained by capitalism. By virtue of the constant job destruction and creation in our economy, 6% unemployment is considered "full employment". Today it hovers around 4.9%.

The disaster of socialism in the last century is coming home to roost. Our Democrat lawmakers have promised more than they can deliver. They have triumphantly taken over 15% of the wages of all Americans for each's person's working life and spent or promised 20% upon retirement. As a result today we have a $13 Trillion unfunded liability to Social Security and Medicare and a $5 Trillion unfunded liability to city, county and state employees. Add to that the government guarantee of private pension which capsize and you begin to get the picture. Remember all the whining about our national debt; well folks, that is only $4.6 Trillion; not $20 Trillion.

The answer to this dilemma is being stonewalled by the left; simply because Democrats will lose their power to demagogue the poverty issue. You see privatization will take that 15% out of the government's hands and invest it for each American in a growth fund. By virtue of the magic of compounding, even the poor will become wealthy after a 40-year working life. But the Democrats say we can't have that, the poor made wealthy? What could be a more disastrous scenario for those donkeys. See www.thenewsocialsecurity.com for some real answers.

Maryland - Socialistic injustice

Maryland's lawmakers have acted arbitrarily and unjustly in passing a law designed to force a single company--Wal-Mart--to increase its health benefits. The government has no place dictating to companies what health benefits they offer, period--let alone targeting a single scapegoat company for punishment.

This arbitrary exercise of power by Maryland's lawless lawmakers against one of America's best companies should be repudiated by everyone who believes in justice, rights, and the rule of law.

Dr. Yaron Brook
President of the Ayn Rand Institute

I completely agree. If employees don't like Wal-Mart's benefit program, they don't have to work there. Companies should have the right to set their own employee benefit programs without government interference.

The modern miracle of medical science.

For years now I have had pain in my right knee. It really isn't anything very recent. As a kid I played basketball and I know I somehow injured by knee when I was young because when I had to report to the draft when I was 18, (the U.S. Army draft, not a basketball team draft) I remember that my knee was causing problems at that time. Well, it was the kind of pain that you only feel occasionally for most of my life, so it was tolerable.

Over the past few years the pain has gotten worse and has been pretty consistent whenever I walked. About six months ago I went to have my knee x-rayed and then I had an MRI scan. What the doctors discovered was that there was no cartilage whatsoever between the femur and tibia (the thigh bone and the lower leg bone). Cartilage is present in healthy people and acts as a soft buffer or "cushion" when you walk so that the bones don't rub against each other. Well, it turns out that, in my right knee, I had what is officially known as osteoarthritis. That is, the loss of cartilage and connecting tissue. Some of it is caused by aging, but injuries to the knee can also accelerate the deterioration.

My doctors said that there is no way to "grow" back cartilage and that a permanent cure would be to have a total knee replacement, or arthroplasty

Being opposed in general to surgery (especially on me, and especially when someone is going to be cutting my bones), I decided to postpone having surgery and decided to try some other treatments. I tried some homeopathic remedies and I tried taking some anti-inflammatory medication. Well, as you can imagine, nothing worked, and I became resigned about surgery. I decided to put my trust in my surgeon and agreed to have a MIS Arthroplasty. That is, a minimally invasive surgery total knee replacement.

I won't go into the details, but I had the surgery on Monday, September 19th. I was discharged from the hospital yesterday, Thursday, September 22. While they want me to use a cane for safety reasons, I can walk without one. There is, of course, some pain during the healing process, but I am told that that should disappear within six weeks, and I have to do rehab exercises. But, I am able, four days after the surgery, to do my normal activities. I can go for walks, I can go to the office as long as I don't sit at my desk for more than an hour at a time, I can even go out to restaurants. Since it is my right knee, my driving leg, I won't be able to drive for about two to three more weeks.

I had a lot of apprehension about the surgery. I consider it amazing that they can remove my old knee and replace it with a new one and have me out and walking within a few days. Modern medicine is so technically advanced from what it was even five years ago. Of course I owe a lot to the Institute for Joint Replacement at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, and their fantastic and caring staff of post-operative nurses, physical therapy and occupational therapy specialists. I also owe special gratitude to my surgeon, Dr. Brad L. Penenberg, a man of great and special talent.

We are lucky to be living in a country where the funding for technological advancements and improvements in science are made especially by private contribution but also by government assistance. America is truly a great country. Who would have imagined even 25 years ago that you could remove a knee joint, replace it with a prosthetic knee, and have the patient up and walking within a few days?
[Original Post: September 23, 2005]

UPDATE 16 January 2006:

It has now been four months since I had the surgery. I spent three months going three times a week to a physical therapist doing rehab on my leg for an hour and one-half per session (4 1/2 hours per week). The leg muscles need to be rehabilitated, and long-time habits of limping to avoid knee pain have to be eliminated. I now have fully rehabilitated my right leg. My new prosthetic knee now works better than my original knee, and especially, I have no pain.

I have heard some horror stories from others who have had knee replacement surgery. Thank G-d I didn't experience any negative reactions relating to my knee. I attribute a good deal of the success of this operation to my doctor, Dr. Brad Penenberg, as I indicated previously.

I have no regrets about having had the knee replacement, and, in fact should have done it sooner.

Looking back at the coming World War

Niall Ferguson has an interesting article in the Los Angeles Times today. He presents what he thinks future historians will say about the events in the Middle East today.

"With every passing year after the turn of the century, the instability of the Gulf region grew. By the beginning of 2006, nearly all the combustible ingredients for a conflict — far bigger in scale than the wars of 1991 or 2003 — were in place."

"The first underlying cause of war was, of course, the increase in the region's relative importance as a source of petroleum. The rest of the world's oil supplies were being rapidly exhausted, while the breakneck growth of the Asian economies had caused a huge surge in global demand."

"A second precondition of war was demographic. While European fertility had fallen below the natural replacement rate in the 1970s, the decline in the Islamic world had been much slower. In Iran, the social conservatism of the 1979 revolution conspired with the high mortality of the Iran-Iraq war and the subsequent baby boom to produce, by the first decade of the new century, a quite extraordinary surplus of young men. More than two-fifths of the population of Iran had been aged 14 or younger in 1995. This was the generation that was ready to fight in 2007."

Read this interesting article.

The hidden secret of the Democratic Party

Clark Baker writes a well-documented essay on the history of the Democratic Party and the secret it does not want disclosed: The Democratic Party was responsible for the lynching and oppression of Blacks (who were mainly Republicans) in the 19th and 20th Century.

Here is an excerpt:

Like my antagonist and many other Americans, public schools taught me that white people had enslaved blacks and that their progeny were entitled to relief. I didn’t question this, although it didn’t square with my ancestors who fought to end slavery 150 years ago. If whites were guilty, why did two million of them interrupt their lives to fight the bloodiest war in American history to free slaves owned by Southern Democrats? If this was a white-against-black thing, why did whites fight the Civil War against other whites?

The answer is that the Civil War wasn’t between whites and blacks, but between Republicans who wanted to end slavery, and Democrats who did not. And as ugly as the Democratic Party’s roots and legacy of slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow, and Disenfranchisement is, why does the party still exist today?

The first clue of this information blackout comes directly from Democrats. Although the Republican Party proudly discloses their Abolitionist roots on their website, the Democratic Party (DNC) website ignores their slavery agenda, excluding the entire period between 1848 and the 20th Century. Instead, the DNC boasts the “longest running political organization in the world”, the “Democratic cause” (slavery) and their dominance in urban (e.g., black) politics - as if Democrats had nothing to do with the brutality used to round up blacks.

Read the whole essay. It is very enlightening.

Cronkite is at it again

Walter Cronkite, whose 1968 statement on the air that the Viet Nam War was unwinnable, convinced President Lyndon Johnson to withdraw U.S. troops and abandon the South Vietnamese people. As a result, the U.S. left Viet Nam which allowed the North Vietnamese butchers to kill hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese. In fact, the war was winnable, the U.S. did not have the will to win it.

Cronkite is at it again.

Former CBS anchor Walter Cronkite, whose 1968 conclusion that the Vietnam War was unwinnable keenly influenced public opinion then, said Sunday he'd say the same thing today about Iraq.

"It's my belief that we should get out now," Cronkite said in a meeting with reporters.

Now 89, the television journalist once known as "the most trusted man in America" has been off the "CBS Evening News" for nearly a quarter- century. He's still a CBS News employee, although he does little for them.

Cronkite said one of his proudest moments came at the end of a 1968 documentary he made following a visit to Vietnam during the Tet offensive. Urged by his boss to briefly set aside his objectivity to give his view of the situation, Cronkite said the war was unwinnable and that the U.S. should exit.

Then-President Lyndon Johnson reportedly told a White House aide after that, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America."

The best time to have made a similar statement about Iraq came after Hurricane Katrina, he said.

"We had an opportunity to say to the world and Iraqis after the hurricane disaster that Mother Nature has not treated us well and we find ourselves missing the amount of money it takes to help these poor people out of their homeless situation and rebuild some of our most important cities in the United States," he said. "Therefore, we are going to have to bring our troops home."

This time I believe the U.S. understands the importance of our mission in Iraq and we will not abandon the Iraqi people, despite the Walter Cronkites, Barbara Boxers and John Murthas of our country.

Shadegg for Majority Leader

Center-Right Bloggers are appealing to the Republican community to support John Shadegg for Majority Leader of the House of Representatives:

An Appeal from Center-Right Bloggers

We are bloggers with boatloads of opinions, and none of us come close to agreeing with any other one of us all of the time. But we do agree on this: The new leadership in the House of Representatives needs to be thoroughly and transparently free of the taint of the Jack Abramoff scandals, and beyond that, of undue influence of K Street.

We are not naive about lobbying, and we know it can and has in fact advanced crucial issues and has often served to inform rather than simply influence Members.

But we are certain that the public is disgusted with excess and with privilege. We hope the Hastert-Dreier effort leads to sweeping reforms including the end of subsidized travel and other obvious influence operations. Just as importantly, we call for major changes to increase openness, transparency and accountability in Congressional operations and in the appropriations process.

As for the Republican leadership elections, we hope to see more candidates who will support these goals, and we therefore welcome the entry of Congressman John Shadegg to the race for Majority Leader. We hope every Congressman who is committed to ethical and transparent conduct supports a reform agenda and a reform candidate. And we hope all would-be members of the leadership make themselves available to new media to answer questions now and on a regular basis in the future.


Signed,

N.Z. Bear, The Truth Laid Bear
Hugh Hewitt, HughHewitt.com
Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit.com
Kevin Aylward, Wizbang!
La Shawn Barber, La Shawn Barber's Corner
Lorie Byrd / DJ Drummond , Polipundit
Beth Cleaver, MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Jeff Goldstein, Protein Wisdom
Stephen Green, Vodkapundit
John Hawkins, Right Wing News
John Hinderaker, Power Line
Jon Henke / McQ / Dale Franks, QandO
James Joyner, Outside The Beltway
Mike Krempasky, Redstate.org
Michelle Malkin, MichelleMalkin.com
Ed Morrissey, Captain's Quarters
Scott Ott, Scrappleface
The Anchoress, The Anchoress
John Donovan / Bill Tuttle, Castle Argghhh!!!

The Club for Growth has also endorsed Rep. Shadegg. Here is the statement of The Club for Growth:

Washington, D.C. - Club for Growth, the nation’s leading free-market advocacy organization with over 34,000 members, announced today that it is endorsing Rep. John Shadegg’s candidacy for U.S. House Majority Leader.

“There is no member of the House of Representatives more committed to the idea of limited government and economic freedom than John Shadegg,” said Club for Growth president Pat Toomey. “To be an effective governing party, Republicans must focus once again on these core issues and John Shadegg has the unique qualifications to lead the way.”

Rep. Shadegg is one of only four Members of the House of Representatives to vote the pro-growth position on every key vote identified last year by the Club for Growth. To view the scorecard, click here.

“The House Republican Conference has been ideologically adrift,” continued Toomey. “This nominally conservative party is responsible for a huge expansion of government and letting spending get out of control.”

“John Shadegg is a principled, effective leader who can build consensus across the full range of the Conference to return to the core issues of limited government and economic freedom that produced a Republican majority in the first place,” Toomey concluded.

The Republican Party needs to remove from its leadership any taint from the Abramoff scandals and anyone who has even a hint of corruption. The new Party leadership needs to be squeaky-clean and an exemplar of integrity and ethics.

John Shadegg is such a man.

Fatwa issued against nudity for married couples

Well, if nothing else, these Islamist clerics certainly keep us entertained. The latest silliness from the Religion of Peace is the fact that an Egyptian cleric has declared that nudity during sex annuls marriage for Muslims.

According to the religious edict issued by Rashad Hassan Khalil, a former dean of Al-Azhar University's faculty of Sharia (or Islamic law), "being completely naked during the act of coitus annuls the marriage".

What else can I say?

Hat tip: Tel-Chai Nation

Why God chose the Jews

By Andrew Klavan

THERE IS ONE good thing about anti-Semitism: It lets you know who the bad guys are. Right, left, black, white, freak or straight, the minute someone starts rattling on about the evil Jews, you know your train just pulled into Slimeball Station.

All bigotry is wrong, of course, but there's something about this particular form of prejudice that is weirdly reliable as a sign of deeper wickedness. Perhaps it's because the Jews contributed so much to humanity's moral code that to hate them as a race is to despise the restraints of morality itself

Whatever the reason, true, virulent anti-Semitism is such a good indicator of the presence of evil that I'm tempted to believe that when God made the Jews his chosen people, this is what he chose them for: to be a sort of Villainy Early Detection System for everyone else.

Unfortunately, in his infinite love for his creation, I suspect the Big Guy may have overestimated our intelligence. Maybe he thought that after Hitler we'd just, you know, like, get it. Instead, we still see apparently intelligent people appeasing, making excuses for and even embracing the sorts of stinkers who ought to set off the Big Alarm.

That's why I think the system could use more bells and whistles — a loud honking noise perhaps, or even closed captioning for the morally impaired. Thus, when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says the Holocaust is a "myth" or that Israel "must be wiped off the map," you would hear a loud honk and words would appear in the air below his face: "Hello. I am an evil madman. Please stop negotiating with me now and proceed to cripple my nuclear capability by any means necessary."

Or how about when Venezuelan leader — and anti-American Iran ally — Hugo Chavez warns that "descendants of those who crucified Christ … have grabbed all the world's riches for themselves"? Honk. His subtitle: "Hi. I know you lefties are still enamored of the idea of socialism — fine. But personally, I'm a jerk and a friend of tyranny. Oh, and Mr. Belafonte? Go home before you make an ass of yourself."

Now, I understand the situation in the Middle East is morally and politically complex, as is the situation in South America. I know that honorable people can hold conflicting opinions about the issues in these places. But when the entrenched misery of an area nearly as large as the United States is consistently blamed on 5 million people in a country the size of a shoebox, or when the ills of the world are loaded onto less than 1% of its population, I begin to become suspicious.

If it were only a matter of hating Jews, we could say: "Feel free, hate everyone, knock yourself out." The trouble is the suffering, the slaughter of innocents and indeed the destruction of entire nations that seems inevitably to follow when anti-Semitism is allowed to spread beyond the cesspool of the mind that contains it. History is too full of lowlifes who thought all their problems would be solved if they could just kill enough Jews — or thugs like Pontius Pilate who thought it was a matter of killing the right Jew — for us not to realize that their Final Solutions aren't final and are no solution. They are often the first, and sometimes the last, road sign pointing the way to an earthly hell.

So here's a plan. The next time you express an opinion on what's wrong with the world, take a look around to see who's nodding in agreement. If it's some clown who thinks the Jewish state should be pushed into the sea, or that the Jews killed Christ or are conspiring to subvert the world economy or the government or the media, I beg you to consider that you might be wrong. There is no shame in changing your opinion. Falling into step with wicked fools — that's shameful, and it's dangerous too. God gave you an early detection system. Use it.

Crime novelist ANDREW KLAVAN can be reached at AndrewKlavan.com

[Reprinted with permission of the Author]

Jack Abramoff and Toward Tradition

Jack Abramoff and Toward Tradition

by Rabbi Daniel Lapin

In recent news reports Toward Tradition has been drawn into the whirlpool of the Abramoff lobbying scandal. Because news media are notoriously inaccurate I would like our friends and supporters to hear directly all the facts about the relationship between Jack Abramoff and the organization I have the privilege of serving.

Initially my name began appearing in connection with one of the stories circulating about how Jack Abramoff met Tom DeLay. Some articles claimed that I introduced them while others, including one in the Washington Post, have the two meeting at a DeLay fundraiser, introduced by Edwin A. Buckham, then DeLay's chief of staff. Although I have no clear recollection of having formally introduced them, it is certainly possible. I was at several Republican Party events at which both Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff were present, including one at the 1996 Republican National Convention in San Diego at which I spoke.

Abramoff was not among the group of twenty two Jews and Christians who originally conceived of and founded Toward Tradition in 1991. However, he became a supporter and joined the board of directors a little later and eventually served a few terms as chairman of the board. He resigned his chairmanship at the end of 2000 and from the board in 2004. In total, on account of his time pressures, Jack Abramoff attended only five board meetings of Toward Tradition. He contributed to the organization at a level typical of the level of other board members. His giving to Toward Tradition was slightly lower than some board members and slightly higher than others. We now know that on one occasion, a contribution came in the form of a check from his Capital Athletic Foundation. It is not unusual for donors to submit contributions from foundations or organizations they are involved with. At no time have I personally ever received funds from Jack directly or from his various organizations.

During that period, Jack’s access to the White House was being eagerly courted by many organizations both Christian and Jewish, usually in the hope of obtaining the President as a speaker for an upcoming event. I heard one of the leaders of a prominent pro-Israel lobbying organization boast that Jack Abramoff took his phone calls.

In June 2003 I wrote to a number of Toward Tradition supporters saying that if they intended contributing substantially to the Bush Cheney ’04 campaign they may wish to direct their support via Jack Abramoff.

Then came his fall which has almost Shakespearean overtones. Sometimes the most poignant tragedies are those in which the victim is complicit in his own destruction. But of course, that is true for most of us—we are often our own worst enemies.

On June 25, 2005, The Washington Post ran a profile of me with the heading “The Republicans' Rabbi-in-Arms.” Alluding to Abramoff, the piece referred to me as “the Man Who Stands by His Scandal-Ridden Friends.” Later the writer claimed about my frequent visits to Washington DC, “Usually on these trips Lapin stays with Jack Abramoff, a lobbyist who is an old friend of the Lapin family.” The travel information is not true. Anyone familiar with my travel habits knows that I never impose on households and always much prefer to stay at hotels. However Jack was a long time friend of the Lapin family. He first met my brother, David, while he was shooting Red Scorpion in South Africa during the late 80s. In the early 90s, Jack Abramoff arrived in California with an introduction from David and became friendly with my father and me.

I did not serve as Jack’s rabbi or mentor and our friendship revolved around our families, children’s educational challenges and the difficulties of being a political conservative in the larger Jewish community. We shared occasional social and family events. I can recall no discussions about Jack’s business and never heard anything from him that caused me to think he was doing anything unscrupulous. I never met or heard mention of names like Scanlon, Kidan, and others involved in Abramoff’s business dealings. We did share an enthusiasm for Jewish Christian cooperation, for ancient Hebrew texts, and for the role of religion in politics.

The press located an email from Abramoff asking me to supply him with an award that he said he needed to gain admittance to an elite Washington DC club. Anyone familiar with Abramoff’s jocular and often fatally irreverent email style won’t be surprised that I assumed the question to be a joke. The very notion that an exclusive social club would regard a meaningless award from Toward Tradition to be adequate credentials for admittance was ludicrous. I responded in similar style offering to “wallpaper his office with awards.” I regret the exchange. I should have candidly explained that Toward Tradition is not an academic institution and does not issue the kind of awards he described. Like most organizations, our awards only acknowledge the support provided the organization by the recipient. Whenever Toward Tradition has issued an award it has always taken place at a public event after considerable board discussion and a resolution. As a board member, Abramoff would have known this which is what assured me that he was joking.

Let me be clear. On no occasion did I, Toward Tradition, or any organization with which I was affiliated ever create an award for, or present one to Jack Abramoff. The affairs of a non-profit are documented by minutes and at no point did Abramoff’s award request ever get treated in a serious manner by being brought before the board.

The scandal swirling around Jack deepened and then came the plea agreement on January 3rd. That was what was responsible for the current spate of negative publicity. Headlines such as “Abramoff Used Foundation as Conduit for Money” began to appear.

The Plea Agreement is 14 pages long, with another 15 pages of attachments, for a total of 29 pages. On page 13 of the attachments in item 35 out of a total of 41, appears a reference to “a non profit entity”. Although it doesn’t mention any name, the non profit entity alluded to is in fact Toward Tradition.

Toward Tradition staff members were extensively interviewed last August by the Justice Department about the events. Here is what happened.

Toward Tradition ran large conferences in Washington DC in the fall of 1994, 1997, and 2000. For a Seattle-based organization to hold a large national event across the country in Washington DC requires considerable work and someone on the ground in DC to act as a local representative and organizer. This person negotiates with hotels and caterers, stays in touch with the aides and schedulers for Capitol Hill speakers, arranges logistics such as transport and recording, and sees to the post conference wrap up, public relations, etc. A DC conference succeeds or fails upon the caliber of its roster of prominent speakers from Capitol Hill. A conference needs to confirm the speaker list as early as possible while legislators prefer to confirm as late as possible. Having a local organizer who knows the lay of the land and who can obtain confirmations from the schedulers of congressmen and senators is vital.

In both 1994 and 1997 Toward Tradition had succeeded in securing the services of such organizers. For the 1994 conference, Toward Tradition hired a politically experienced DC-based organizer to help put the conference together. In 1997, our conference coordinating was done by a DC-based organizer we hired who had previously worked in a congressman’s office. In addition, two of our staff members flew out to DC to base themselves there in the period leading up to the 1997 conference. The point is that there is an incredibly long list of to-dos in arranging a multi-day conference in the nation’s capital.

Sometime before the summer of 2000 Jack Abramoff asked Toward Tradition whether we had already hired the DC-based organizer for that fall’s conference. Upon hearing that we had nobody appointed yet, he offered to provide someone. He mentioned that he knew an individual who had the experience and connections that we were seeking and that she was currently looking for work. This was Lisa Rudy. He added that he might know a donor willing to donate a gift to Toward Tradition to be used to hire a DC based coordinator who would help us with our forthcoming conference.

It is not uncommon for donors to make specific gifts for specific purposes so we suspected nothing amiss and our board approved hiring Lisa Rudy especially since her salary was to be covered by a donor. It is also not uncommon for donors to enlist the support of their friends and business contacts for their cause. Thus we were not surprised when a check arrived from Jack Abramoff for $25,000 made out by a firm called ELottery, with directions to pay Lisa Rudy $5,000/month for her services as our local conference coordinator. We received a couple more checks from other Abramoff clients allowing us to continue paying Lisa Rudy until the post-conference work was complete which was January of 2001. Toward Tradition paid her the total of what we received from Jack Abramoff for that purpose. Nothing of those gifts was retained for Toward Tradition’s general use; they were only used to hire a professional organizer in what we thought was a completely legitimate arrangement.

As I understand it, Abramoff pled guilty to intending to influence Lisa Rudy’s husband who worked for Tom DeLay by “providing ten equal monthly payments totaling $50,000 through a non-profit entity to the wife of Staffer A.” The Justice Department questioned whether Lisa Rudy had actually done work for Toward Tradition. Toward Tradition documentation clearly demonstrated that, in all innocence, we had thoroughly employed her services and that she had in fact done for us all that the local coordinator was supposed to do at a fee within the range of what we expected to pay for the services provided.

To clarify, the $25,000 check to Toward Tradition was NOT for lobbying purposes in favor of gambling. Not only has Toward Tradition or myself never engaged in lobbying but I have never written or spoken in favor of gambling. In fact we have radio shows and articles, as well as excerpts from my books in which my negative views of gambling, especially government sanctioned gambling are no secret. At the time, back in 2000, Toward Tradition assumed that Jack, still a member of the board, was doing what many non-profit board members do for the non-profit organization they serve, which was solicit a gift from a business associate for our benefit.

That supporters and friends of Toward Tradition have been embarrassed by the press linking us to Jack Abramoff disappoints me terribly. However, Toward Tradition and I interact with thousands of individuals and hundreds of organizations every year. It is just unrealistic to suppose that none of these relationships are ever going to become problematic. There was no reason for Toward Tradition to spurn Jack Abramoff’s support.

For many years Toward Tradition was admired and envied for having someone like Jack Abramoff on our board of directors. In any typical week I would field several calls from prominent business or political leaders, even from a sprinkling of celebrities, all seeking my help in gaining access to Jack Abramoff. As recently as April 3rd, 2002, The New York Times published a flattering front page profile of Jack Abramoff with nary a word of criticism. He was widely viewed in glowing terms both socially and politically.

The insinuations of wrongdoing on the part of Toward Tradition are untrue and unfair. This is to be expected. As a prominent conservative spokesman heading a conservative organization, we present a juicy target for a left-leaning press. But very few people get a fair shake in the press. The news media are not in the business of “being fair.” They are in the business of selling. They sell subscriptions, advertising, and publicity. That is how they get paid. Obviously, the first rule of selling is—get the prospect’s attention. This is what is happening when a used car salesman strolls up and asks you if you like the vehicle you’re gazing at. It is also exactly what a journalist does when he attracts your attention with a sensationalistic headline. Despite high-minded and self-serving rhetoric about journalistic responsibility, the media is in business like just about everyone else and being in business means selling. But selling means attracting attention and good news simply doesn’t attract attention. Sensational stories do attract attention. Wild accusations do attract attention. And when these wild accusations tar someone, it is notoriously difficult for a public person to obtain redress for libelous statements in the press. Years back, Ray Donovan, Ronald Reagan's Secretary of Labor who was acquitted of corruption charges in a court of law after being tried and condemned by media, plaintively asked "Where do I go to get my reputation back?" No, the press doesn’t care about fairness. It is the nature of the beast.

On a personal level, this affair reminds me that human beings are far too complex creations to be evaluated with a simple balance sheet. Imagine a man who saved someone’s life, raised money for the homeless and hungry, and did seven other wonderful deeds. However, during the same time period he also was cruel to a cat, had an affair and divorced his wife, and did eleven other horrible things.

We are tempted to do some simple arithmetic on this human being. A total of nine good deeds versus thirteen bad deeds results in a minus four rating. We then conclude that he is a moderately terrible human being. He is much worse than someone with a plus seven rating and not quite as bad as someone with a negative nine rating.

The truth is that this doesn’t work. God created us as infinitely complex creatures. We are capable of both evil actions and good ones—very often on the same day. Even a moral reprobate like Schindler made a list that saved many innocent lives. Someone who does some terrible things but also does some good things is better for the world than someone who only does terrible things. Someone who atones for his evil is better than someone who feels no remorse. It is a mistake to label a person as ‘evil’ because of his evil actions. We are better off evaluating only people’s many varied actions, leaving God to evaluate people in their totality.

Jack Abramoff is a practicing Jew who has admitted doing things that his faith despises. This embarrasses other observant Jews as well it should. Heaven knows, religious people are just as imperfect as secular people. Being religious doesn’t mean one is perfect and never sins. It does mean that when a religious person sins, he is tormented by pangs of remorse. He agonizes in knowing every day that he has let down, not only himself, his family and his friends, but also his God. Many of us are lured into the trap of sounding self-righteous and sanctimonious when we condemn the behavior of religious wrongdoers. While it is true that we are entitled to expect a higher standard of conduct from those who fear God, it is not true that God-fearing people who sin are irredeemable hypocrites. They are religious people who are not perfect. They are not proof of the general hypocrisy of faith neither are they a vindication of secularism. It would be admirably consistent were the press to identify most of the murderers, muggers, robbers, and rapists of society as miscreants who never had any exposure to religion.

I am terribly saddened by the tragic turn of events in Jack Abramoff’s life and by the impact his actions have had and will have on the lives of many people including his own wife and children. Could I have foreseen the calamity and its peripheral but distracting impact on Toward Tradition? I don’t really think so. Many shrewd lawyers and business professionals as well as experienced politicians in Jack Abramoff’s orbit failed to sense any peril.

Had Abramoff’s lifestyle been dissolute; replete with women, drugs, yachts, and fast cars, I along with many others would certainly have recognized the unwholesome warning signs and been uncomfortable. However, from what I observed, Jack’s life revolved around his work, his family, and his faith. He spent money on subsidizing a kosher restaurant, a religious high school, Israeli causes, and helping poor relatives. These don’t excuse illegal acts but neither were they warning signs to his friends and associates.

There are many who hate what Toward Tradition stands for and who will exploit this unpleasant association by hurling mud. They never had any interest in the truth and the truth won’t change their actions.

Abraham Lincoln was reputed to have said, "If I were to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business. I do the very best I know how, the very best I can, and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what is said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, then angels swearing I was right would make no difference."

To those of you who always assumed that Toward Tradition conducted itself with integrity and propriety, I appreciate you giving us the benefit of the doubt and I hope this account of a tragic episode confirms your assessment.

Rabbi Daniel Lapin.
Toward Tradition
Mercer Island, Washington.

Rabbi Daniel Lapin, an Orthodox Rabbi in Seattle, Washington, is author of Thou Shall Prosper, America's Real War and Buried Treasure ,is President of Toward Tradition and hosts his own television and radio shows.

Abramoff - A show of bad faith

The Jack Abramoff situation, aside from being sleazy, is sad. Jack was an idealistic youth when he headed the College Young Republicans, and it is sad to see that youthful idealism give way to the lust for money and power. What is additionally sad is that Jack is an orthodox Jew. One who is supposed to live by the moral teachings of the Torah.

Jeff Jacoby, another orthodox Jew, has written an article titled, "Bringing faith into contempt." Some excerpts:

By his own admission, Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff is a crook. But that isn't the worst that can be said about him.

He defrauded his clients of millions of dollars, bribed public officials, cheated on his tax returns, and deceived lenders to qualify for a loan. But that isn't the worst that can be said about him, either.

He made himself at home in and contributed to the swamp of corruption that fills Washington with its stench. His e-mails to cronies, with messages like "Can you smell money?!?!?!" and "I'd love us to get our mitts on that moolah!!", oozed greed and boorishness. Behind their backs, he crudely mocked those who hired him, calling them "morons," "monkeys," "troglodytes," and "the stupidest idiots in the land." He played fast and loose with what were supposed to be charitable funds. But not even that is the worst that can be said about him.

The worst is that Abramoff is a Jew. Not only a Jew, but an Orthodox Jew -- someone who claims to be committed to strictly observing Jewish law and faithfully adhering to the Torah's ethical standards. But instead of upholding those ethical standards Abramoff trampled on them, and a "religious" Jew who behaves so corruptly disgraces not only himself but all religious Jews. He brings his faith into contempt. He is guilty of what Jewish tradition calls, with disgust, *chillul ha-Shem* -- a desecration of God's name.

For me -- also an observant Jew -- that is the worst thing of all.

Honesty in financial dealings is not optional in Judaism; it is mandatory. The Talmud teaches that when a person is brought to judgment in the world-to-come, the first question the heavenly tribunal puts to him is: "Did you conduct your business affairs in good faith?" A Jew who takes the values of his religion seriously must be scrupulous in his transactions with others. To be sure, even the saintliest people -- not to mention the rest of us -- sometimes fall short of the values they profess. But Abramoff's criminal deeds and sleazy manner are a lot worse than mere lapses in judgment. One who behaves so unethically and illegally drags more than his own reputation through the mud. He is an embarrassment to his religion and his community, and that comes close to being unforgivable.

Read more.

Osama bin Laden dead?

Michael Ledeen says his sources have told him that Osama bin Laden died last month in Iran of kidney failure.

And, according to Iranians I trust, Osama bin Laden finally departed this world in mid-December. The al Qaeda leader died of kidney failure and was buried in Iran, where he had spent most of his time since the destruction of al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The Iranians who reported this note that this year's message in conjunction with the Muslim Haj came from his number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri, for the first time.

Union for Reform Judaism hijacked?

The Union for Reform Judaism (URJ) has a press release on their web site opposing the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. The Union claims to be the representative of 1.5 Million Reform Jews in the U.S. They may well be, but I wonder if they polled their membership on this issue?

Yesterday Senator Diane Feinstein, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stated it would be improper to make judgment on Judge Alito before the hearings begin. Yet, that is exactly what the URJ has done.

You might ask why would this organization be taking such a stand? That is a good question. Nowhere in their bylaws or mission statement does it mention political activities. In fact, since the group is a non-profit organization, their involvement in political issues might be against their charter, and might cause problems with their tax-exempt status.

It is not uncommon for an organization that has other purposes when it is formed to be hijacked by activists to use it as a base for their own ideals. The statement against Alito says “Representatives of the 1.5 million [Reform] Jews in North America.” That sure is a lot of people and thus should wield large influence among the unknowing. The unknowing, being those who are unaware that the organization has no basis to make these statements in the first place and that the decision was not made on a democratic basis.

So what are Alito’s crimes that would cause him to be slapped down by the URJ days before his hearings? The URJ says he “Would threaten the protection of the most fundamental rights.” “On choice, women’s rights, civil rights and the scope of federal power, Alito (read Bush) would shift the ideological balance of the Supreme Court.”

Making the arguments against Alito was the Vice-President for the People for the American Way. So whose meeting was this - the URJ or activist left-wing political groups?

On top of this, the voting was done by a voice vote despite many non-delegates being in the room. One might question what affiliation those guests had who were there for this political hijacking.

The URJ should focus on its mission as defined by its by-laws and tell its activists to leave their political opinions at home or join an organization formed for that purpose.

As I said in this previous post, the Union for Reform Judaism has lost its way. The URJ, which represents the largest branch of organized Judaism in the United States, constitutes the extreme left of American political thought and of American Jews. The concern of the Union is no longer "what is best for the Jews," but what is best for the cause of American political liberalism.

Where are the reform Jews who will challenge the position of the URJ?

Galles: Fix the problem, not just the corruption

Fix the problem, not just the corruption

Gary M. Galles, Guest Columnist
LA Daily News

The widening circle of federal "public servants" being connected to the Jack Abramoff influence-peddling scandal has others looking for ways to inoculate themselves from the fallout this November. Republicans are readying ethics-reform legislation to that end. Others are calling for new campaign-finance restrictions. But while such responses reflect public outrage at the latest evidence of corruption in the system, it is not clear that they will lead to a more responsible government.
New ethics rules, corruption laws or campaign finance restrictions are unlikely to contribute much to fixing our nation's governance problems because these failings are primarily rooted in what the government is allowed to do, not in how people manage to get the ear of those who control its levers of power.

The central problem is that long-standing constitutional constraints limiting government power have been progressively eroded, so that government has increasingly turned from being the protector of the rights of its citizens against the violations of others to being itself a pervasive violator of those rights. The resulting ability to help political friends at others' expense leads to the abuse of government power, regardless of how access to elected officials is obtained.

Consider Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, granting Congress the power to levy "uniform taxes" to provide for the "general welfare." In contrast, today's tax code is filled with discriminatory taxes designed to burden particular subgroups of the population. Further, a large proportion of federal spending is designed to benefit certain groups at taxpayers' expense, as illustrated by the massive amounts of pork in recent legislation.

There is nothing in the Constitution that even hints that such taxes for the provision of benefits to special interests is a legitimate federal function. But the fact that such policies are now considered acceptable - even commendable - leads to abusive government.

Consider also the Fifth Amendment's statement, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." While this prevents the government from physically taking your property without payment, current court interpretations allow governments to force the sale of almost any property, whenever they choose, and to take large parts of its value to benefit particular special interests through regulations and restrictions.

For example, rent-control laws do not physically take apartments from their owners, but transfer much of their value to current tenants. This ability to push costs onto others in order to help supporters is another source of abusive government.

Similar reinterpretations have befallen other parts of the Constitution, such as the contracts and commerce clauses, which essentially have been transformed from barriers against government intrusion into open invitations under even the flimsiest of pretexts. Again, the effect has been to expand the power of legislators and bureaucrats into areas our Founding Fathers tried to put beyond their reach.

The result of such changes has been an increase in the power of government officials to do what our Constitution formerly ruled out, and this has led to governance that is a far cry from one primarily concerned with the general welfare. Once these powers have been seized by government, access to government officials in ways considered corrupt - as with the Abramoff scandal - can worsen the results for others who will be forced to bear the burdens of every special favor.

But reforms in how access to the powerful can legally be acquired would not solve the underlying problem: government with few constraints on its ability to do favors to friends, which necessarily harms others.

Reforms pushed in response to the latest government corruption scandal address aspects of irresponsible government that are too far from its core. Unless the Constitution's restrictions on government powers are taken more seriously, they will do little to produce a more responsible government.

Gary M. Galles is a professor of economics at Pepperdine University. Write to him in care of Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA 90263.

David Letterman - Discourteous and ignorant

In an article in the American Thinker, Bob Weir points out the level of discourse that prevails now in American television.

“Sixty percent of what you say is crap,” said David Letterman to his guest, Bill O’Reilly. Sadly, this is the level to which dialogue in America has fallen. Here we have a man who is the host of a major late-night show on national television, and he is rude to someone he invited as a guest. From the moment O’Reilly sat down opposite the CBS clown, he was peppered with insults and accusations about how he orchestrates his top-rated cable news program, The O’Reilly Factor.

In the first exchange, Letterman criticized O’Reilly’s support of the tradition that makes Christmas the reason for the season. When the Factor host provided evidence of the systematic attempt by some schools and large retail stores to remove Christ from the landscape, the suddenly acerbic comic began his attack. “I just think that people like you are trying to make us think it’s a threat,” he said. When his guest gave more examples of the erosion of the values upon which this country is founded, he was practically called a liar. “I don’t believe you, I think you‘re making it up,” responded Letterman. The New York audience, made up mostly of liberal fans of the show, responded like trained seals, applauding vigorously at every critical comment made by the host.

Letterman is typical of those on the left who can't provide rational arguments for their anti-war, anti-Bush political position, and who live in a liberal bubble thinking the whole country thinks like them.

Weir concludes with:

Yes, it must be tough to stay in the good graces of powerful celebrities, but one sure way to be invited to all the right Beverly Hills soirees or New York ACLU cocktail parties is to attack anyone who supports the virtues of religion or love of country. Surely, O’Reilly knew he was going to be a Christian thrown to the lions when he walked out on that stage, but he had the guts to do it. Letterman wouldn’t understand that, but he turned out to be right about one thing; he’s not smart enough to debate O’Reilly.

Saddam was involved in global terrorism

Despite the cries of the loony left that we have no business in Iraq because Saddam wasn't involved in global terrorism or that he had nothing to do with 9/11, documents are coming to light that indicate the opposite. You probably won't read about this in the New York Times, the Washington Post or the LA Times. In an article in the Weekly Standard by Stephen F. Hayes.

The former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.

The secret training took place primarily at three camps--in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak--and was directed by elite Iraqi military units. Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders corroborate the documentary evidence. Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda, chief among them Algeria's GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Some 2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000. Intelligence officials believe that some of these terrorists returned to Iraq and are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis. According to three officials with knowledge of the intelligence on Iraqi training camps, White House and National Security Council officials were briefed on these findings in May 2005; senior Defense Department officials subsequently received the same briefing.

These documents are from a collection of some 2 Million documents captured by Coalition forces after the invasion of Iraq. It seems to be taking a long time to review and analyze all the documents. According to Hayes,

The discovery of the information on jihadist training camps in Iraq would seem to have two major consequences: It exposes the flawed assumptions of the experts and U.S. intelligence officials who told us for years that a secularist like Saddam Hussein would never work with Islamic radicals, any more than such jihadists would work with an infidel like the Iraqi dictator. It also reminds us that valuable information remains buried in the mountain of documents recovered in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past four years.

Nearly three years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, only 50,000 of these 2 million "exploitable items" have been thoroughly examined. That's 2.5 percent. Despite the hard work of the individuals assigned to the "DOCEX" project, the process is not moving quickly enough, says Michael Tanji, a former Defense Intelligence Agency official who helped lead the document exploitation effort for 18 months. "At this rate," he says, "if we continue to approach DOCEX in a linear fashion, our great-grandchildren will still be sorting through this stuff."

Apparently the Pentagon is reluctant to release documents to the public so that the information is not taken out of context and misused by the anti-war press in the U.S.

The main worry, says [Pentagon spokesman Larry] DiRita, is that the mainstream press might cherry-pick documents and mischaracterize their meaning. "There is always the concern that people would be chasing a lot of information good or bad, and when the Times or the Post splashes a headline about some sensational-sounding document that would seem to 'prove' that sanctions were working, or that Saddam was just a misunderstood patriot, or some other nonsense, we'd spend a lot of time chasing around after it."

This is a view many officials attributed to Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Steve Cambone. (Cambone, through a spokesman, declined to be interviewed.) For months, Cambone has argued internally against expediting the release of the documents. "Cambone is the problem," says one former Bush administration official who wants the documents released. "He has blocked this every step of the way." In what is perhaps a sign of a changing dynamic within the administration, Cambone is now saying that he, like his boss, favors a broad document release.

Apparently there are boxes full of photographs of jihadists training in Saddam's camps. I'm looking forward to seeing them.

For more information on Saddam's support for terrorist groups see the following:
Saddam's ties to global terrorism come to light at SoCalPundit.com.
Saddam's terror training camps at Michelle Malkin
Iraq's training of terrorists documented at Powerline.
Unleash the Blogosphere at The Strata-sphere.
Confirmed: Iraq was a terrorist training center at Sister Todjah.

Belafonte calls Bush a terrorist

As reported in Yahoo, Harry Belafonte met with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and praised his socialist programs.

In this photo released by Venezuela's Miraflores Press, American singer and activist Harry Belafonte speaks as Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez looks on during Chavez's weekly television and radio program in El Consejo in Venezuela's Aragua state, Sunday, Jan. 8, 2006. Belafonte called U.S. President George W. Bush a 'terrorist' while warmly praising Chavez and criticizing a U.S. press that he said has ignored the achievements of his socialist programs. (AP Photo/Miraflores Press, Marelo Garcia)

Well, at least with Harry Belafonte he is not afraid to come out and say that he is a lefty-Socialist and that he doesn't like American freedom and capitalism. Many others in the entertainment community feel that way, but don't have the courage to say so.

Israel's economy to remain strong despite the Sharon crisis.

Israel's economy is minimally vulnerable to political change. According to Ambassador Yoram Ettinger, the reasons are as follows:

"1. PROPER PERSPECTIVE. Upon Prime Minister Sharon's hospitalization, the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange dropped by 3.9%, while the Israeli Shekel regained most of its (1.5%) decline by the end of the day. Putting it in perspective, the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange fell by 4.1% upon the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin (rising by 3.5% 22 days later and by 12.3% 63 days later) and took a plunge of 13.6% on the day of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait (rising by 14% 22 days later and by 16% 63 days later). Moreover, Israel has not been a one-man economy! While Israeli Prime Ministers have supported their Finance Ministers, rarely (and certainly not recently) have they conceived or directed Israel's macro-economy.

2. ECONOMIC FEATURES. Since 1985 Israel's economy has become less government-controlled, increasingly private sector-dominated, know-how-intensive (rather than labor and land intensive), high tech-oriented and export-driven. Such features have rendered the economy substantially minimally-vulnerable to security predicaments and less vulnerable to political volatility.

3. ECONOMIC FUNDAMENTALS and INDICATORS. The vulnerability to political volatility has been eliminated by the fact that all viable challengers for the office of the Prime Minister (Labor's Peretz is does not stand a chance due to his ultra leftist and ultra dovish positions) have been committed to the same macro-economic monetary and fiscal policies, which have triggered the impressive growth of Israel's economy since 1985, and have facilitated the sustained recovery during 2003-2005:

*Smaller government (NO more tax & spend);
*Cardinal role played by the fiscally-hawkish Bank of Israel (headed by the globally-respected Stanley Fisher);
*Expanded structural reforms;
*Lower direct and indirect, personal and corporate taxes;
*Lower interest rates (around US rates);
*Lower budget deficit (2.1% of GDP in 2005);
*Lower inflation rates (2%-3%);
*Wider and accelerated privatization;
*Liberalization of foreign exchange regulations;
*Enticing overseas investments;

4. HIGH TECH OVERSEAS INVESTMENTS have been the chief catalyst for Israel's economic growth. Such investments are drawn by the unique supply of breakthrough technologies, which are minimally (if at all) vulnerable to security and political volatility. Therefore, the launch of the current growth in Israel's economy took place in 2003 upon the recovery of NASDAQ and the resulting recuperation of the confidence of private, corporate and institutional US investors. For astute investors (Intel, Motorola, J.P. Morgan, Sequoia, Benchmark, GE-Medical, Siemens, Phillips, etc.) WALL STREET HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN GAZA STRIP. Such investors value Israel's commitment to growth-oriented economic fundamentals much more than they value the political affiliation of the particular Prime Minister.

5. SUSTAINED GROWTH WITH OCCASIONAL BUMPS. An examination of Israel's economy since 1948 demonstrates that the series of wars and on-going terrorism, along with frequent political crises, have not been but bumps on the road to a most impressive economic growth, in defiance of security and political unpredictabilities. The economic significance of the current political predicament is, certainly, substantially less severe than most of the previous security and economic mishaps."

Despite the political turmoil in the middle east, and the frequent attacks on Israeli civilians by Palestinian terrorists, the economy has been surprisingly stable and strong. Disciplined conservative fiscal policies along with tax reductions have contributed to Israel's robust economy. Regardless of the political future of Israel, the economy should remain stable.


Ambassador Ettinger (ret.) is a former minister at Israel's embassy in Washington, and a former consul general of Israel in Houston.

Neuwirth - Spielberg and Me - Part I

Spielberg's Munich and Me - Part I
by Rachel Neuwirth
January 04, 2006

I had deep misgivings about seeing Steven Spielberg's Munich. The tragedy was too close to my heart.

I was supposed to be with the 1972 Israeli Olympiads as a member of the Israeli women's basketball team. At the last minute, the International Olympic Committee decided against including a women's basketball event. (It did not become a regular event until the 1976 Olympics.)

I didn't go to Munich, but I spent years training with the athletes who did go. We developed a close camaraderie, as people do at training camps where tensions and hopes are high. I knew each one of them personally. They were my friends. I watched in horror as the massacre unfolded on TV. I, too, could have been slaughtered by the killers linked to Yasser Arafat.

Instead, I watched them slaughter my friends and saw how callously the world responded. The games went on even as my friends' bodies were flown home draped not in medals, but in burial shrouds.

I feared how Hollywood, even if it was Steven Spielberg, would depict this tragedy, but I finally went to see the film. Munich was worse than I had feared. It left me appalled and enraged. I felt violated. The film debased the memory of my friends. It exploited a horrifying atrocity. It slandered the brave Israeli volunteers who were ready to sacrifice their lives to seek justice and to risk orphaning their children in this dangerous but necessary assignment. Terrorists had to learn they could not murder Israelis abroad with impunity and that the perpetrators of this atrocity would not live to plot another one.

Americans, including Spielberg, have never had to live intimately with war and terrorism in a tiny country surrounded and outnumbered by intractable enemies. My Olympiad friends had. I had. I was born in Israel and have lived my whole life with Islamic terrorism. It began long before the so-called "occupation" and has continued without cease. Its goal is to destroy Israel, and expel or exterminate all Jews. Most young women do military service, as I did, to defend our country in its never-ending war for survival. We accept this obligation with stoicism, and without compromising our ethics or our humanity. That is what reality and our ideals demand of us.

But this film is not about reality or about presenting a truthful account of the aftermath of Munich. It is about Steven Spielberg - his spin on history, his ego, and his arrogance in thinking that he has special wisdom and insights about how to bring peace. He may believe that the ends justify the means, so he has license to twist the truth to promote peace. But "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Some in the mainstream liberal media are praising this movie lavishly. Unfortunately, many people with limited historical knowledge may accept readily Spielberg's twisted version of events and, worse, his political propagandizing (or "morality").

Spielberg didn't search for the moral or factual truths. He didn't spend time in Israel or meet with both Jewish and Arab victims of Islamist terror. Instead, he used the fraudulent book Vengeance. Its author, George Jonas, was exposed years ago as having lied about his contacts with Israel's Mossad. The book's title, Vengeance, is inherently biased and pejorative. Israel did not go after the terrorists out of vengeance, but rather as part of its ongoing war against terrorism.

Spielberg's screenwriter, Tony Kushner, was no better an influence than Jonas. A political ultra-leftist, Kushner co-authored the vehemently anti-Israel volume Wrestling with Zion, and is infamous for his comment that "I wish modern Israel hadn't been born."

In addition, two of Spielberg's consultants for the movie were Bill Clinton and his obedient Middle East negotiator, Dennis Ross - both of whom had their own agendas and both of whom failed to secure peace when they were in power. Spielberg's reliance on these sources for such an important film is ethically irresponsible. The bare-bones, non-technical term for Spielberg's spin is "lying". Spielberg exploits the respect and betrays the trust of audiences who believe in him.

Spielberg plays fast and loose with history most clearly when he brazenly substitutes his own political voice for Golda Meir's documented statements. On September 12, 1972, she told the Knesset: "We have no choice but to strike at the terrorist organizations wherever we can reach them. That is our obligation - to ourselves and to peace. We shall fulfil that obligation undauntedly."

Golda Meir's unwavering commitment and sense of duty are moral universes away from the equivocating words Spielberg puts in her mouth: "...every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate comprises with its own values."

Meir did not see counter-terrorism as a compromise of Jewish values, but rather as submitting to those values. There is nothing in Judaism that requires Jews to "turn the other cheek" to murderers of our people. True, Meir did not want to send Israelis to risk their lives. Nor did she want Israelis to have to kill. It was she who said to Israel's enemies, "We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children but we cannot forgive them for forcing our children to kill their children."

We Israelis do not celebrate when we kill our enemies, though our enemies celebrate when they kill us. Instead, it is a grim duty imposed on us by relentless racism and hate. Meir knew this.

The manufactured quotation is sheer moral relativism and parrots the Left's favorite theme that "violence begets violence." It is also the key message of Spielberg's turgid movie. Yet, Munich also contains graphic violence, tasteless gratuitous sex scenes, and frequent profanity that numb the mind and serve no constructive purpose.

A central theme of the movie is to make the audience believe that retributions against savage and barbaric slaughter do not deter terrorism. This concept is part of Leftist anti-war appeasement and a defeatist philosophy that blames victims of aggression. But Spielberg offers no proof that this is true. The West made a major mistake in Munich when it appeased Hitler and failed to stop him before he became more powerful. We do not hear Spielberg argue for post-9/11 negotiations with Osama Bin-Laden. Spielberg, typical of so many "progressive" liberals, would like Israel to adopt his appeasement philosophy, while he sits safely and comfortably thousands miles away in his Pacific Palisade mansion, far from danger.

Spielberg told Time magazine that Munich is "a prayer for peace." But if he is truly seeking prayers for peace, he need look no further than the Jewish liturgy and the Hebrew Bible for both wisdom and balance. America's Founding Fathers said: rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There is also the truism: "He who is compassionate to the cruel will ultimately become cruel to the compassionate." [Emphasis added]

[Part 1 of 2]

The NY Times, as seen by many

Hat tip: Aaron
As seen on Fark.com

Is Hollywood paying attention?

Domestic Gross (New Year's Weekend):
The Chronicles of Narnia $32,848,000
King Kong $31,591,000
Fun with Dick and Jane $21,000,000

Domestic Gross to date (1/2/2006):
The Chronicles of Narnia $224,839,000
King Kong $174,324,000

[Data from Boxofficemojo.com]


Helloooo, Hollywood. Does that tell you anything?

How about making movies that people really want to see?

More on "Munich" - and its silent victims

Ed Lasky writes an article in The American Thinker titled, "Spielberg's Silent Victims." The article relates that Spielberg granted no moral standing whatever to the surviving relatives of the slain Israeli athletes.

Postmodern ideology places victims at the very top of the pecking order of morality. Unless, of course, the victims come from a class of persons deemed by the supreme authorities of political correctness (The New York Times, Hollywood, and academia) to be pariahs.

Steve Spielberg’s controversial new movie Munich demonstrates this principle.

Maureen Dowd infamously characterized Cindy Sheehan as embodying “absolute moral authority” in opposing the Iraq War because her son Casey, who volunteered to serve, was killed in Iraq. The much larger number of bereaved American parents who lost children in Iraq, but who supported the war, garnered almost no attention or imputed authority from Ms. Dowd and her press colleagues. Some victims are more equal than other victims, you see.

Mr. Spielberg granted no moral standing whatsoever to the bereaved relatives of the slain Israeli Olympians. Even worse, his representatives insulted them. The story of his treatment of the surviving relatives, victims directly comparable to Ms. Sheehan (except of course that Casey Sheehan volunteered for war while the Israeli athletes volunteered for Olympic competition), is rather shocking.

The film has been the subject of criticism across the political spectrum. Some of the complaints include:

- Spielberg’s use of a notoriously anti-Israel playwright to write a script that equates Israel’s preventive measures to stop terror with terror itself.

- The movie used imagery to suggest that somehow Israel was responsible for 9/11. The film does this by adding an unnecessary scene at the end of the movie. The camera pans from the face of one of the Israelis who was part of the team that found the terrorists and dealt justice to them to the image of the World Trade Center – thereby somehow trying to link, fallaciously, the Israelis’ actions to the attack on the WTC (which took place over a quarter-century later).

- The movie’s implication that Israelis concerned themselves with the financial costs of the program to kill terrorists as much as the morality of the program, betraying a stereotypical obsession with money.

- Spielberg used a book that has been thoroughly discredit as a source for the movie.

- Spielberg took great liberty with facts, as Aaron Klein's new book on the Munich massacre and its aftermath demonstrates.

The author of the definitive history, Aaron Klein, states:

If I were making a movie, I would make a different one. I know the facts, and the facts on the ground tell a different story.

One point, among many, made in Klein’s book is how the widows and surviving family of the Israeli victims were abused by European governments, which not only refused to help Israel stop terror but actually cooperated with terror groups to appease them.

The wife of one of the murdered athletes, Ankie Rekhess-Spitzer, believes that the film uses the Munich massacre and the follow-up campaign to stop the terrorists to illustrate the folly of violent retaliation, and that for her the “comparison is thin.” She says,

It is basically a post-9/11 anti-war film. I told this to Kathleen Kennedy (the producer). She did not deny it. Only Munich is not Iraq. Our athletes went to compete in the Olympic Games and were murdered in cold blood, and nobody was willing to lift a finger to locate or punish the killers. Something had to be done.

It is truly sad that the producer of a great film like "Schindler's List" would become so morally confused and produce this fictionalized attempt to equate Palestinian terrorists with those Israelis who felt that unless they retaliated, more innocent Israelis would be murdered.

UPDATE:
Read an excellent review of "Munich" by Scott Holleran
Read another well-written article by Kate Wright at The American Thinker, "The Lion that Roars for Peace."

Previous Posts:
Spielberg's Munich - Fantasy Fiction
“Munich” stands for “appeasement”