Honest Reporting takes a stab at Jimmy and finds him wanting!

Hamas' Haniyeh was emptied of $35 million in cash he was bringing back from Tehran before being allowed to pass thru Rafah (See 1 below) and then his convoy was fired upon by Abbas' Force 17 wounding his son and killing a body guard. This can only incite the violence between Hamas and Fatah.

Don't forgot it was only a few days ago these same opposing forces were engaged in discussing forming a unity government. As I have said before and now repeat, bring Arabs together for a unity meeting and you create disunity.

Wall Street Journal lead editorial "Kofi and U.N. 'Ideals'" had it about right. Annan, were he running a public company, would be in jail with the likes of the Enron folks.

Another editorial talks about Pelosi's choice to Chair the House Intelligence Committee. Because of feminine angst Pelsoi passed over Rep Harman, an imminently qualified person, for someone who appeased the Black Caucus crowd when she passed over Rep. Hastings. Now we have "empty freezer Rep. Jefferson" returning. This is the new "clean sweep Congress."

Honest Reporting has a blurb on Carter's new book (See 2 below) and points out how the upper echelon of the Democrat Party are distancing themselves both from the man and his book.

Jimmy obviously may believe what was written and certainly is responsible for it but it is doubtful he wrote much of it. If he has, then he is in the onset stages of senility. He obviously has not come to grips with having lost the election and being accorded one of the lowest positions on the rung of the presidential ladder.

Because of his position and the attention showered upon him by a foppish media the man is dangerous but his thinking is so off the wall and unsupported by facts that one can only feel pity or worse laugh at his imbecility.

In three below one of the critical points Jimmy obligingly manipulates, pertains to U.N. Resolution 242. Jimmy thinks nothing about adding a word where none was intended or included. His attempt to rewrite history is in the vein of the English nut case who denied the Holocaust and lost a libel law suit to Emory's Professor Lipstedt.

Larry Kudlow knows something about getting a bounce to fame. After his relationship with Bear Stearns was severed because of substance abuse, he has become an influential TV star but he has remained true to his conservative stripes. In four below, he does a job on Obama, the Senator Rock Star from Illinois whom the media is trying hard to catapult into the White House after a few years of Senate service. Obama is bright and articulate and early. No doubt he would love to be president (why I don't know) and I still believe he will wind up on some Democrat's ticket as Sen Edwards did on Kerry's.

However, Obama runs the risk of being painted into the Uncle Tom Corner by his own as was Gen. Powell and most other intelligent and competent blacks who rise to prominence and find a place of acceptance in "whitey's world." Probably the best thing Obama can do to move his case forward is to accomplish something meaningful but that might not be as much fun as having one's feathers preened while being served soft balls by a fawning press which will turn on him as it generally does on the ones they once loved.

Dick



1) Analysis: Stopping the Hamas money flow
By HERB KEINON


It is an open secret that Hamas has been smuggling millions of dollars into Gaza through the Rafah crossing ever since the international community cut financial aid to the Palestinian Authority following Hamas's rise to power earlier this year.

Yet Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's decision on Thursday to close the Rafah crossing to keep PA Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh from bringing $35 million into Gaza was the first time Israel has actively intervened to stop the money flow. But if the money smuggling has been going on since the spring, why did Israel decide to take action only now?

According to government sources, it was simply a case of having accurate intelligence information about what Haniyeh had in his suitcases.

The sources said that had Israel known back in July that PA Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahar intended to smuggle $20m. into Gaza, they would have taken similar action.

But there seems to be more at play than just good intelligence. Diplomatic sources said there was something so audacious in Haniyeh going to Iran, pledging jihad forever and coming back with suitcases full of cash, that Israel simply could not turn a blind eye. Especially since the Gaza cease-fire agreed upon a few weeks ago called for an end to the smuggling, both of arms and cash.

And while the international community would be less than tolerant were Israel to take military action in Gaza against rocket fire on Sderot, there would be more understanding in trying to prevent an influx of cash to bolster Hamas.

Furthermore, it was clear that the money originated in Iran, and the security establishment is becoming increasingly concerned about the growing connection between Hamas and Iran.

Security officials told the cabinet on Sunday that despite the international ban on bank transfers, the money has continued flowing into Gaza. They said that has led to a situation where Hamas's popularity and strength had not declined since the ban went into effect, but the organization was instead feeling a resurgence of confidence.

A confident Hamas is not only bad for Israel, but also for PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and his supporters, which indicates that Israel is not the only player in the area that wants to see the money flow stopped.

Stopping the flow will be extremely difficult. Although it may be more difficult to walk the money through the Rafah crossing in a suitcase, it can still be smuggled through the tunnels under the Philadelphi Corridor, since a tunnel that can fit arms and ammunition, can also fit suitcases of cash.

But by keeping Haniyeh from bringing the money in on Thursday, Israel sent a message that the unhindered flow of cash from Iran into Gaza was coming to an end. Money will still likely make its way through, but from now on it will probably be more difficult - and not only because Israel wants it so, but because Abbas and those loyal to him want it that way as well.

2) Carter's Book: Presidential Pulp

The former US President's new book causes controversy.

Many subscribers have alerted us to former US President Jimmy Carter's television appearances promoting his new book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid". Perhaps in deference to Carter's previous high position, some interviewers have displayed a reluctance to challenge the mistaken theme of his book. HonestReporting has previously debunked the false comparison between Israel and apartheid South Africa.

Other critics include Alan Dershowitz who comprehensively takes apart the book, contending that Carter's use of the loaded word "apartheid," suggesting an analogy to the hated policies of South Africa, is especially outrageous, considering his acknowledgment buried near the end of his shallow and superficial book that what is going on in Israel today "is unlike that in South Africa - not racism, but the acquisition of land." Nor does he explain that Israel's motivation for holding on to land it captured in a defensive war is the prevention of terrorism. Israel has tried, on several occasions, to exchange land for peace, and what it got instead was terrorism, rockets, and kidnappings launched from the returned land. ...

Mr. Carter's book is so filled with simple mistakes of fact and deliberate omissions that were it a brief filed in a court of law, it would be struck and its author sanctioned for misleading the court. Mr. Carter too is guilty of misleading the court of public opinion. A mere listing of all of Mr. Carter's mistakes and omissions would fill a volume the size of his book.


Carter's views have also been disowned by high-ranking members of his own Democratic Party including DNC Chairman Howard Dean and Speaker Elect Nancy Pelosi as well as leading African-American congressman Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) who said the use of apartheid in the book's title "does not serve the cause of peace and the use of it against the Jewish people in particular, who have been victims of the worst kind of discrimination, discrimination resulting in death, is offensive and wrong."

HonestReporting calls on subscribers to ask the questions of Jimmy Carter that the media is failing to do.

DECLASSIFIED: NYTIMES COVERS HEZBOLLAH MISDEMEANORS

The New York Times, along with much of the mainstream media, played a key role in propagating the view that Israel had indiscriminately and "disproportionately" targeted civilian areas in response to Hezbollah attacks from Lebanon. Now, the NYTimes reports on a new study that says Hezbollah stored weapons in mosques, battled Israelis from inside empty schools, flew white flags while transporting missiles and launched rockets near UN monitoring posts.

The study also says that 650 out of the 1,084 people the Lebanese government has said were civilians killed in the conflict were in fact Hezbollah terrorists.

The NYTimes coverage includes declassified IDF video and photos that explain how "The construction of a broad military infrastructure, positioned and hidden in populated areas, was intended to minimize Hezbollah's vulnerability. Hezbollah would also gain a propaganda advantage if it could represent Israel as attacking innocent civilians."



3) Carter's Palestinian fantasy No. 242
by Asaf Romirowsky


As ex-president Jimmy Carter's new book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," hits the stores, it's worth looking into the infamous UN resolution 242 that he quotes so frequently.

Reading Carter's words gives no indication that Israel was the party that actually accepted 242 and the Arabs and Palestinians were the ones who rejected it.

In fact, after Resolution 242, the Arabs issued the equally infamous three "no's": No peace, no recognition, no negotiation.

None of this matters to Carter, who's built his post-presidency on practicing foreign affairs without an electoral mandate.

Palestinians and Arabs love to quote 242. It's become the foundation for the land-for-peace formula drafted after the Six Day War, and a superficial reading seemingly places Palestinian/Arab brokers of peace in a position of strength. For Arabs, this "legal" prerequisite emphasizes the give and take: If Israel valued peace, it would return land. If Arabs wanted land, they would give peace.

Arabs also love to quote 242 because it is a deceptively simple equation. On one hand, it talks about the exchange of land for peace with Israel, meaning there is room to negotiate. But although we naively believe it also calls for recognition of Israel as the Jewish state, that's not the case.

The resolution calls for "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." It deliberately does not call for withdrawal from "all" or "any" because the authors knew that such demands were unreasonable.

As far as "peace" goes, the resolution lays on the bureaucratic boilerplate and calls for "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

The resolution demands that Israel gives up some land in exchange for some, still unspecified, peace. Israel is still waiting.

As historian Michael Oren explains, "Israel accepted the resolution, albeit begrudgingly, as did Jordan. Nasser's response was more equivocal. While endorsing the UN's decision, he reiterated the three no's to his National Assembly... 'that which was taken by force will be regained by force,' and told his generals, 'you don't need to pay attention to anything I may say in public about a peaceful solution.' "

Decades later, in 2000, Syrian Foreign Minister Faruq Al-Shara illustrated the imaginary land-for-peace fantasy in a speech regarding peace with Israel. Al-Shara noted again the return of the Golan Heights as a prerequisites for negotiations with Israel:

"In no way did we agree to discuss any of the elements of peace before the issue of the full withdrawal is settled. In order for the withdrawal to be full, it must be... without leaving any Israelis - either civilian or military, nor any semi-military or semi-civilian; also, no ground station and no Israeli in any ground station. This is what full withdrawal means and we did not give it up."

Any time you raise the notion of "compromise" in the context of an Israel-Palestinians peace agreement it is relative to their fantasy interpretation of 242. To actually abide by the resolution would be anathema.

And, in fact, when it came to implementing 242, Israel did turn over land time and time again: Sinai, the Oslo accords, the withdrawal from Gaza - in exchange for a cold peace at best and open warfare at worst.

During the Oslo years and the al-Aqsa intifada and today under the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority, "land-for-peace" really translates into "land-for-talk" because to too many Americans and Europeans, talk - not peace - is all that Israel should expect (and possibly deserve), in exchange for territorial concessions. This is the motivation which drove Hezbollah to attack Israel this summer and what continues to fuel Hamas as it rejects Israel's right to exist.

If the Palestinians really want to talk about Resolution 242 as the basis for anything, they should first get their own territories under control, stop firing rockets at Israeli towns, and start creating a decent civil society.

Until then, Israelis have learned a hard lesson that until the other side stops wanting to wipe Israel off the map, resolutions like 242 really aren't worth the paper they're written on.

4) Behind the Obama Bounce
By Lawrence Kudlow

Media mogul Oprah Winfrey anointed him presidential heir-apparent on "Larry King Live." Three-thousand adoring fans clung to his every word in New Hampshire. His new book sits atop the New York Times bestseller list. Over on "Monday Night Football," he announced, after "a good deal of soul-searching," that he is ready (wink-wink) . . . "for the Bears to go all the way!" (How's that for free advertising?)

Barack Obama is on a big-time roll.

In a Washington minute, the Democratic senator from Illinois has the media saying, "Hillary Clinton who?" But every honeymoon must come to an end, and I can think of a few reasons why Wall Street might want these nuptials annulled fast.

Last Sunday, while stumping -- er, speaking -- in New Hampshire, the young senator delivered an interesting line. Attempting to explain his sudden rock-star ascendancy to the pantheon of presidential hopefuls, Obama said voters wanted a new vision: "It's a spirit that says we are looking for something different -- we want something new."

Trouble is, there's nothing "new" or "different" about Barack Obama. Behind that charm and charisma -- a media-entrancing appeal worthy of Bill Clinton -- is an extremely liberal-left politician.

Just look at his record.

Obama voted against the Bush tax cuts on capital gains and dividends, justifying his anti-growth stance with the old class-warfare saw about tax cuts for the rich. Of course, these are the very same tax cuts that spurred economic expansion, created record job growth and reduced the deficit, as revenues flooded the Treasury.

The young senator also voted against repealing the death tax. He dismissed it as a "Paris Hilton tax break" that would give "billions of dollars to billionaire heirs and heiresses." Try telling that to the owners of farms, ranches and small businesses who are forced to sell their legacies because of this tax.

He swings a nice protectionist bat, too. He has voted against free trade (CAFTA) and U.S. energy independence (drilling in ANWR), and has opposed lifting a $0.54 per gallon tariff on Brazilian ethanol. "Ethanol imports are neither necessary nor a practical response to current gasoline prices," he claimed. Nonsense.

He's also strongly opposed to personal retirement accounts for Social Security reform and prefers instead that the government steward your money. As Amanda Carpenter wrote in Human Events, "When speaking out against various tax cuts, Obama has likened the 'Ownership Society' -- which entails such things as personalized Social Security accounts, health savings accounts and school choice -- to 'social Darwinism.'"

The George W. Bush way has been to work toward ending the multiple-taxation of savings and investment -- to lower taxes and put the people's money back in the people's wallets. It's all about capital. Simply put, the economy can't grow without capital to fertilize the soil of new technologies, jobs and businesses. But Obama scoffs at such notions.

The senator is liberal to the core. He voted against Supreme Court Justices Sam Alito and John Roberts. (Even liberal Sens. Russ Feingold and Pat Leahy voted for Roberts.) He said no to Patriot Act wiretap extensions, despite their proven effectiveness in halting terrorist attacks over the past five years. He collaborated in blocking John Bolton's appointment to the United Nations. He earned a perfect 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America. He voted against a ban on partial-birth abortions twice as a state senator. He opposed the Defense of Marriage Act and stood against the Federal Marriage Amendment, despite acknowledging his belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Let's remember that Democrats won their congressional majority by doing their best impersonation of Republicans. In securing their November sweep, the Democrats captured a huge margin of independent Ross Perot voters -- fiscal conservatives who favor balanced budgets, an end to deficit spending and strong national security. Obama fails these independents on each account.

Do Democrats really want Obama to take them on a U-turn back to the left?

If the Democrats really want to embrace a rising star, they need look no further than Harold Ford, the young African American congressman from Tennessee who nearly captured a Senate seat last month. Ford appreciates free markets and capitalism. He has boldly crossed party lines to vote to extend the investor tax cuts and expand tax-free savings accounts. He avoids class-warfare platitudes and embraces the Ownership Society. He's optimistic -- Reaganesque. And his pro-growth vision stands in stark contrast to Obama's nanny-state predilection.

The good news for Obama is that there are about 700 days until Election Day 2008. If he decides to seek the Democratic nomination, he has time to change his message -- perhaps after a few chats with Harold Ford.