From Mugged By Reality to Mugged By Double Talk Etc.

Randall Hoven and his ten predictions - did they come to pass? (See 1 below.)
---

Now Obama corrupts the NLRB. (See 2 below.)
---

Our son worked for Tony Cordesman and respected his ability to make forecasts that were often quite credible. Now Cordesman and Abdullah Toqan report there is a growing belief in some American military circles that "…nuclear weapons are the only weapons that can destroy targets deep underground or in tunnels…"

One might question whether strategists, who are flirting with the concept that Israel will strike Iran with nuclear weapons, are doing so to thwart Israel.

The entire scenario laid out is somewhat far fetched but I have friends in Israel who believe Israel is committed to stopping Iran though they have never suggested doing so by a nuclear attack.

I, on the other hand, fear it may escalate in that direction.


Meanwhile, petty pressure Obama is placing on Israel and the methods being used are likely to accomplish two things:

a) It will make Palestinians more obdurate and

b) It could cause Israel to feel so abandoned by its former friend it might feel forced to strike out in self defense. (See 3, 3a and 3b below.)

Like I keep saying, who needs enemies. (See 3c below.)

Syria and Libya offer advice to Palestinians - abandon peace talks. (See 3d below.)
---

Jellissen on Michael Jenkins' thoughts about terrorists gaining access to a nuclear bomb. (See 4 below.)
---

Bill Kristol suggests words will not stop Iran's nuclear ambitions nor prevent its success.

Liberals are justifiably excited over the passage of the health care legislation which few have read or understand and claim will be made acceptable after many changes. Perhaps, but I suspect Obama's historical legacy regarding health care will be overtaken by allowing Iran going nuclear.

Chamberlain passed legislation that helped England's economy but he was known in historical terms for caving to Hitler. (See 5 below.)
---
As I noted earlier I am reading Karl Rove's: "Courage and Consequence."

I have no doubt, authors tend to put lipstick on the recordation of their involvement in history and those whom they served unless their intent is to do a hatchet job. That said, I also believe when an author cites 'facts' and 'quotes' words of others and then proceeds to document them with notes revealing extensive research the reader must give some degree of credence to their written word.

Chapters 19 - 23, are entitled: The Lack of Bi-partisanship, Joe Wilson's Attack, Bush Was Right on Iraq, The Special Prosecutor and Me and Getting Ready for Kerry.

Rove buttresses what I have believed from the day The Supreme Court ruled against the Florida Supreme Court, thus making Bush president - partisans were never willing to accept GW's legitimacy just as partisans today are unwilling to accept evidence Obama was American born. From Democrat Leader Gephardt to Rep. Tauscher, Adam Smith and many Democrats in between there was an orchestrated and consistent drum beat against GW, his programs and efforts to block just about everything he sought from legislation to appointments.

In the Chapter on Joe Wilson, Rove acknowledges the administration did not adequately comprehend the negative effect Wilson's spurious claims would have in de-ligitimizing GW's rationale for attacking Iraq. That said, it has become evident to any objective person, Joe Wilson never was able to support his claims and his attacks were ultimately proven without a basis in fact.

In the Chapter pertaining to GW's reason for attacking Iraq, again Rove cites all the Democrats who believed and said Iraq and Sadaam were a threat to world peace and believed he did possess WMD. They are hypocrites of the first order but they prevailed.

Rove suggests had 9/11 not occurred he doubts GW would have attacked Iraq.

Rove acknowledges the corrosive effect of the failure to find WMD and he states he was to blame for the administration's weak response and failure to rebut forcefully the scurrilous charges that GW lied about why he attacked Iraq.

I accept Rove's explanation . What Rove did not cover is his view of the various mistakes GW made post the defeat of the Iraq forces, his poor appointments in the case of Admiral Brimmer. Furthermore, Rove never addresses the question of the destabilizing effect the Iraq war had with respect to Iran. No doubt Sadaam was evil, was a leader intent on achieving nuclear status, if possible, but his presence and bluster about having nuclear weapons served to put box in Iran.

Rove, however, is absolutely correct in alluding to the despicable hypocrisy on the part of Democrat leadership and how their attacks undercut our effectiveness in Iraq notwithstanding, errors made. One of the the biggest Democrat hypocrites of all was Jay Rockefeller.

Rove also reaffirms what I have said time and again - Sadaam was in league with al-Qaeda and did provide safe haven and medical help for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - a key lieutenant of Osama.

In the chapter about his appearance before the Special Prosecutor regarding the Wilson matter, it is evident Rove was innocent as was Scooter Libby. Rove survived, Libby did not. What this chapter says to me is that anyone who serves in government becomes fair game for vicious attacks and lies by those who have no scruples. No wonder many of the best minds, people of true character no longer want to serve their country.

This seems to be why more and more who do serve do so to further their own narrow interests and political agendas, are driven by power and lose sight of what is best for the nation.

The current administration is the best evidence of why I hold this view and why so many self-serving candidates even failed to be appointed once put under simple scrutiny.

Rove's assessment of the Democrat candidates running for the nomination and against GW's second term are revealing and, in my view, totally accurate. Rove saw through Edwards for what he turned out to be - liar, though too liberal for his taste Rove would have been comfortable with Gephardt had he become president. Rove would have loved to have GW run against Dean and saw Kerry as one who "...projected coolness, aloofness and barely [hid] his disdain for the hoi polloi - as did his wife..."

Rove acknowledged his admiration for Sen. Lieberman.

I still have about 150 pages to go. I recommend Rove's book for anyone who wants to learn and be entertained because it is very readable.

What I really would love to read is another book where Rove responds to questions which challenge some of GW's decisions. One such book critical of GW's planning was written by my friend and I reported on it several years ago - John Agresto's : "Mugged By Reality."

Today America is being mugged by double talk, flaky fiscal assumptions and arrogance etc..
---

I previously posted my interpretation of what a close friend and fellow memo reader thought about our census. Now this is his own words. (See 6 below.)

These are nursery rhymes sent to me by a Liberal so far to the left he fell off the edge of Friedman's: "The World is Flat."

I read them and thought they were written by a less than compassionate Conservative. (See 7 below.)
---


Dick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Hope and Change, as Predicted
By Randall Hoven
In January 2009, I wrote "Predictions of Hope and Change." President Obama had been in office barely a week, and the big topic was his "stimulus" plan. It had not yet passed, and there was some uncertainty that it would. Nor had he released a proposed budget of any kind. In fact, everything about his presidency was a guess.


I made ten fairly specific predictions. How did they turn out?


Prediction 1. "Obama and the Democrats will pass a massive stimulus bill ... it will cost just a smidgen less than the $850 billion [TARP] bailout ..."


Actual results: They indeed passed a $787-billion stimulus. But they were even cleverer than that. Shortly after, within two weeks, they passed a $410-billion omnibus bill. So the total was well over the $850 billion mark, but no one noticed since all the focus was on the thing called "stimulus."


Prediction 2. "The $849 billion stimulus will be a bit short on construction spending but chock full of funding for the left."


Actual results: The Dept. of Education spent about ten times as much stimulus money as the Dept. of Transportation did. Of all the stimulus money going to the states, only 8.6% went for "transportation," while 85% went for "health, education and training." In any event, a net 880,000 construction jobs were lost from February 2009 to February 2010. Apparently, Robert Reich got his wish about the money not going to "white male construction workers."


Prediction 3. "The current recession will end later this year, although its end might not be declared until some time in 2010 ... the markets will start recovering. Not to a Dow of 14,000 though..."


Actual results: The NBER has not yet called it a recovery, but almost everyone else has. Just about all economic indicators show that the recession ended mid-2009. Real GDP grew in both the third and fourth quarters of 2009, as did industrial production. The Dow went below 7,000 in February 2009, but it drew back from the abyss and has hovered around 10,000 to 11,000 for the last six months.


Prediction 4. "Obama will keep his promise about pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq."


Actual results: The Iraq pull-out plan appears to be on or ahead of schedule. There were 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq last February and 98,000 this February. What we didn't know then, and what I didn't predict, was that the troops would be assigned to Afghanistan instead. The number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan went from about 30,000 to almost 80,000 in the last year, with more planned through this summer for a total close to 100,000.


Prediction 5. "Benjamin Netanyahu will be elected Prime Minister of Israel. When the Mideast situation degrades ... It will be blamed on Israel's right wing, intransigent Prime Minister."


Actual results: Netanyahu is now the Prime Minister of Israel. And everyone from Hillary Clinton to Joe Biden and even General Petraeus is blaming Israel for making things tough across the Middle East, including Iraq and Afghanistan.


Prediction 6. "Iran will get the bomb ... In any case, no one will take action against them... Sanctions will either be lifted or ignored ..."


Actual results: Iran doesn't seem to have the bomb yet, but it is on its way. Even president Obama admitted as much as far back as last February. There is still a lot of talking, but no doing, about sanctions. So this prediction is still open, but it appears to be on track.


Prediction 7. "Osama bin Laden will be killed or captured ... We'll release some former Gitmo detainees ..."


Actual results: Osama bin Laden has not yet been killed or captured. But efforts to kill Taliban and al-Qaida in the AfPak area have intensified. We kill a Baitullah Mehsud in Pakistan one day, and release a Mohamedou Ould Slahi, a 9/11 plotter, from Gitmo another. Ironically, releasing terrorists from Gitmo might be a good idea: They'll go back to their terrorist ways, and then we kill them and everyone around them with bombs from 10,000 feet -- no tribunal, no trial.


Prediction 8. "A host of leftist legislation will become law ... universal health care ... Banks and banking will be effectively nationalized ..."


Actual results: Universal health care is now law. That is, we started getting taxed for it, but the coverage doesn't start until about 2015. Banks are pretty close to nationalized. The government now owns 60% of what was General Motors and 10% of Chrysler. Most of the other legislation is on its way, with nothing to stop the Democrats for at least the rest of this year now that those silly House and Senate rules are made up as they go along.


Prediction 9. "In a development that will surprise many, President Obama will not spend like a drunken sailor (or a compassionately conservative Republican), at least in 2011 and 2012."


Actual results: We have not hit 2011 yet, but projections of Obama's budgets through the next decade show deficits averaging about $1 trillion each year. N\ow that the stimulus and national health care are under his belt, Obama is starting to talk about deficit reduction. He even kicked off a commission for it. The good bets, though, are that "deficit reduction" plans will come in the form of increased taxes, not reduced spending. No matter, since it is perception that counts. By November, Obama will have transformed himself into a "deficit hawk," and the voting public (50% of it) will believe it.


Prediction 10. "Barack Obama will be re-elected in 2012 with approximately 60% of the popular vote."


Actual results: The 2010 elections have not happened yet, much less the 2012 elections, so we don't know how this prediction will turn out yet. But despite a loss of almost five million jobs during his tenure, an unemployment rate hovering near 10% and passage of a huge and mostly unpopular health care bill, Obama's job approval rating is close to 50%, and he matches the likely big names on the Republican side in popularity. Nothing so far indicates that Obama is not headed for a second term.


By my score, six of my ten predictions have come true or mostly true (1 to 5, and 8). Not bad for four years' worth of predictions after one year. The other four are still open, but most look on track.


Before Obama took office, I characterized the possible scenarios of his presidency as the good, the bad, and the ugly. I was hoping for "the bad."


If the more dramatic and least popular of these policies are enacted early, the electorate will want to change the change, maybe even as soon as 2010 -- especially if the economy continues to struggle. In that sense, we conservatives (meaning anyone not socialist) should hope the Obama/Reid/Pelosi ruling coalition gives it to us good and hard and soon.


I believed that Obama would have to go "ugly" to sneak through his leftist agenda. That is, he could not be open about it, much less in-your-face, because the electorate would not let it happen.


It was worse than I thought. Not only would Obama take the "bad" route, but the electorate would not mind. Yes, the Tea Party movement sprang up, but it seems limited to a subset of the 47% of the people who did not vote for Obama in the first place. Among those who voted for him, I'm seeing very little mind-changing. As stated earlier, his poll numbers are not really all that bad.


Imagine if the NBER declares the recession over and unemployment falls below 9%. Imagine we pull out of Iraq as planned. Imagine things go well enough in Afghanistan that we leave there as planned also. Obama hovers around 50% approval right now. Things don't have to get all that much better to put him out of reach of any Republican opponent you can name.


It does look like the Democrats will lose some seats in Congress this year, but enough to switch control? Of both houses? Even if so, Republicans would face filibusters in the Senate and presidential vetoes through 2012. And what if, God forbid, Thomas, Scalia, Roberts or Alito leaves the bench?


It looks like we'll get the bad and the ugly. We have so far.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Welcome extremist pro union lawyer Craig Becker to NLRB
By Rick Moran

It's now safe to say the NLRB is about as impartial a body as Robespierre's Revolutionary Tribunal that condemned tens of thousands to the guillotine during the French Revolution.

SEIU flunky Craig Becker has been added to the board via recess appointment, therefore, it will be as if Andy Stern woke up on Christmas morning with this heart's desire in his stocking:


But Becker's appointment drew strong denunciations from Republicans because his overt pro-union disposition and former writings have convinced many that Becker will push provisions making it easier for employees to unionize through the NLRB, instead of the White House having to move such actions through Congress.
"In his January State of the Union address, President Obama pledged that he would work in a bipartisan fashion to confront the challenges facing our nation. Instead of living up to that pledge, the President today ignored the Senate's bipartisan rejection of a highly-controversial nominee," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, Utah Republican.

All 41 Republican senators sent a letter to the president Thursday urging him not to recess appoint Becker.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the president was "overriding the will of the Senate."

"This is the first time since 1993 that the Chamber has opposed a nominee to the NLRB. The Chamber's opposition is based on Mr. Becker's prolific writings, which suggest a radical view of labor law that flies in the face of established precedent and case law and is far outside the mainstream," said Randel Johnson, the Chamber's senior vice president for labor, immigration and employee benefits.

The Obama administration has increasingly looked to the NLRB as the forum in which to accomplish its pro-labor goals, rather than through Congress, after support for the Employee Free Choice Act, also known as "card check," dissipated last year.

Do we detect a pattern here? Obama can't get cap and trade through the senate so he tasks the EPA with doing the dirty work. Now that it looks like card check is stalled, Obama is "reaching out" to the NLRB to fulfill his dream of the Unionized States of America.

Oh, by the way - if Mr. Becker isn't radical enough for ya, how about Lesbian activist Chai Feldblum for EEOC commissioner who has promised never - repeat never - to rule in favor of religious liberty when opposed to sexual liberty.

Welcome to the new Mainstream.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)US researchers postulate Israeli tactical nuclear strike on Iran


Tactical Nuclear Weapon Scenarios of a potential Israeli attack on Iran - usually without Washington's assent - abound in leading US media in the last 24 hours. They contrast sharply with the impression Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu has been trying to convey to the public that he and President Barack Obama were of one mind on the Iranian question when they talked at the White House last Tuesday, March 23, but the president wanted more Israeli concessions to get talks restarted with the Palestinians.

Military sources point in particular to the work of two eminent experts on Iran's nuclear program, Anthony Cordesman and American-Jordanian Abdullah Toqan for the Washington Institute for Strategic Affairs, who report the belief in some American military circles that "…nuclear weapons are the only weapons that can destroy targets deep underground or in tunnels…"

The quote was embodied in a 208-page report published Friday, March 26 under the heading: Options in Dealing with Iran's Nuclear Program.

They explain that because of the limited scale of its air and missile forces, Israel would resort to "using these [nuclear] warheads as a substitute for conventional weapons, given the difficulty its jets would face in reaching Iran for anything more than a one-off sortie."

In July 2009, the two researchers (in a 114-page report) maintained that the Israeli Air Force possessed the aircraft and resources for striking Iran's nuclear facilities. This view disputed the estimates generally current Washington at the time. Then, too, Cordesman and Toqan were of the opinion that it was not necessary to hit scores of targets to cripple Iran's nuclear bomb program: Seven to nine sites would suffice.

Our Iranian sources report that Tehran ran off thousands of copies of that report for distribution among its intelligence and Revolutionary Guards commanders, who were told to study every word, photo and map. Iran's rulers took the work as seriously as though they had scooped a top-secret Israeli plan of operation.

In their latest work, the two researchers find that ""Ballistic missiles or submarine-launched cruise missiles [such as those with which Israeli Dolphin submarines are armed] could serve for Israeli tactical nuclear strikes without interference from Iranian air defenses."

Saturday, March 27, the day after the Cordesman-Toqan paper was published, The New York Times revealed: "… international inspectors and Western intelligence agencies say they suspect that Tehran is preparing to build [two] more sites," six months after its secret enrichment plant was discovered in Qom.

The report goes on to say: "The most compelling circumstantial evidence… is that while Iran appears to be making new equipment to enrich uranium, that equipment is not showing up in the main plant that inspectors visit regularly [at Natanz or at Qom.]"

Small manufacturing factories spread around Iran to avoid detection and sabotage "are a particular target of American, Israeli and European intelligence agencies," some of which have been penetrated," the report says. Iran "has encountered difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges, the machines that spin at very high speeds to enrich uranium."

Then, Sunday, March 28, The New York Times followed up with proposed scenario, captioned: "Imagining an Israeli Strike on Iran," based on a simulation exercise conducted last December by the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

Its main point is that if Israel goes ahead with this attack, using a refueling base set up in the Saudi desert without Saudi knowledge, Washington will essentially tell its leaders they have "made a mess," and instruct them "to sit in a corner while the United States tries to clean things up."

The exercise does not indicate how the US will clean things up, whether diplomatically or militarily - or both - or just concentrate on keeping the Gulf oil nations safe from Iranian retaliation.

Iran next defies warnings and fires missiles at Israel, including its nuclear center at Dimona, with minimal damage and casualties - the strategy being "to mount low-level attacks on Israel while portraying the United States as a paper tiger…"

Sources infer from this simulated war game that the Americans believe that, aside from the confrontation over Iran's nuclear facilities, Israel and Iran will try and use their conflict to manipulate US policy.

The next stage would be for Hizballah to fire up to 100 rockets a day into northern Israel, following which Israel would launch a 48-hour campaign by air and special forces against Lebanon to destroy Hizbalah's military strength.

The games simulators then predict an Iranian attack on the Saudi oil industry center at Dahran with conventional missiles, mining the Strait of Hormuz and damaging US oil shipping.

At that point, Washington will embark on a massive reinforcement of the Gulf region. It is clear that the US will then aim at destroying all Iranian, air, ground and sea targets in and around the Strait of Hormuz to inflict a "significant defeat" on Iran's forces.

The game is projected to end eight days after the initial Israeli strike.

3a)Israel fears Obama heading for imposed Mideast settlement
By Ari Shavit, Haaretz Correspondent

U.S. President Barack Obama's demands during his meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last Tuesday point to an intention to impose a permanent settlement on Israel and the Palestinians in less than two years, political sources in Jerusalem say.

Israeli officials view the demands that Obama made at the White House as the tip of the iceberg under which lies a dramatic change in U.S. policy toward Israel.

Of 10 demands posed by Obama, four deal with Jerusalem: opening a Palestinian commercial interests office in East Jerusalem, an end to the razing of structures in Palestinian neighborhoods in the capital, stopping construction in Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, and not building the neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo.


But another key demand - to discuss the dispute's core issues during the indirect talks that are planned - is perceived in Jerusalem as problematic because it implies that direct negotiations would be bypassed. This would set up a framework through which the Americans would be able to impose a final settlement.

It is not just Obama's demands that are perceived as problematic, but also the new modus operandi of American diplomacy. The fact that the White House and State Department have been in contact with Israel's European allies, first and foremost Germany, is seen as part of an effort to isolate Israel and put enormous political pressure on it.

Israeli officials say that the Obama administration's new policy contradicts commitments made by previous administrations, as well as a letter from George W. Bush in 2004 to the prime minister at the time, Ariel Sharon. According to this view, the new policy is also incongruous with the framework posed by Bill Clinton in 2000.

Senior Israeli sources say that as a result of the U.S. administration's policies, the Palestinians will toughen their stance and seriously undermine the peace process' chances of success.

Moreover, sources in Jerusalem say that the new American positions undermine the principle of credibility that has guided U.S. foreign policy since the end of World War II. Ignoring specific promises made to its Israeli ally would make other American allies lose trust in its commitments to them.

Israeli officials warn that if the United States shirks its past commitments, the willingness of the Israeli public to put its trust in future American guarantees will be undermined - as will the superpower's regional and international standing.

3b) Report: US may abstain from UN resolution on east Jerusalem


According to BBC, senior American official told Qatari FM Washington would 'seriously consider abstaining' from vote on UN motion against Israeli construction in eastern part of capital

The US is considering abstaining from a possible UN Security Council resolution against Israeli construction in east Jerusalem, the BBC reported on Sunday.


According to the report, the possibility was raised during talks in Paris last week between a senior US official and Qatar's foreign minister, Sheikh Hamad Bin Jasim Al Thani.


A diplomat quoted the senior American official as saying during the meeting that the US would "seriously consider abstaining" if the issue of Israeli settlements was put to the vote.

The US official made the remark after Sheikh Hamad asked him whether Washington would guarantee not to veto a UN Security Council resolution that was critical of Israeli construction in east Jerusalem.


The US, one of five permanent members of the Security Council with veto power, usually blocks Security Council resolutions that condemn Israel, but relations have been severely damaged since Israel announced the construction of 1,600 apartments in east Jerusalem's Ramat Shlomo neighborhood.

The announcement, which made was during US Vice President Joe Biden's visit to the Jewish state, drew harsh criticism form the Obama Administration.

The Palestinians responded by pulling out of the US-brokered indirect "proximity talks" with Israel.

The US views Israeli building in east Jerusalem, the part of the city claimed by Palestinians as their future capital, as disruptive to Mideast peacemaking. Israel insists the city cannot be divided and says it has the right to build anywhere.


'Working meeting among friends'
Israel annexed east Jerusalem after capturing it in the 1967 Mideast war, but the move was never recognized internationally. The international community sees Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem as no different from settlements in the West Bank.



Nearly 300,000 Israelis live in West Bank settlements, in addition to about 180,000 Israelis living in Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem.



Earlier Sunday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked his cabinet to soften the tone towards US President Barack Obama.

"I have been hearing inappropriate remarks in the media recently with regards to the American president and his administration. Even when there are disagreements – these are disagreements among friends, which are based on a longtime relationship and tradition," Netanyahu he said.

Also on Sunday, a top Obama aide said the US president did not give Netanyahu the cold shoulder when they met in the White House last week.

Obama met the Israeli leader in the White House on Tuesday but did not dine with his visitor and, by keeping the talks closed to the media, also denied Netanyahu the courtesy of a photo-opportunity with the president.

This raised questions in blogs and at White House news briefings that it was a deliberately calibrated gesture by the administration to communicate its displeasure with Netanyahu over Jewish housing construction in east Jerusalem, which have stalled peace negotiations with the Palestinians in the form of US-mediated indirect talks.

"This was a working meeting among friends. And so there was no snub intended," White House senior adviser David Axelrod told CNN's State of the Union news program.

3c)Can Israel survive friends like these?
By Wesley Pruden


This is the moment a certain number of a certain breed of Democrats have been waiting for. The latest outburst of bad feeling between Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu can be the cover they seek for finally putting the Jews in their place.


First the president went to the Middle East to apologize to the Muslims for America being America, and couldn't find the time for a stopover in Israel, America's only true friend in the region. Then he dispatched Joe Biden, the vice president who says he is an "ardent Zionist," to Jerusalem to try to mollify the Israelis with a cheap and sentimental love song with lyrics that nobody believes. The mission quickly blew up when the veep used the occasion to lecture the Israelis for building 1,600 new apartments for Jews in East Jerusalem, which the Palestinian bomb-throwers and their American apologists insist on calling "settlements". Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, followed up with some nasty remarks.


Then came Mr. Netanyahu's long-scheduled visit to Washington, and things went from troubling to bad, and then to really bad. The Israeli prime minister, speaking to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee reminded everyone that "Jerusalem is not a settlement, it is our capital." Israel's enemies are real: "The ingathering of the Jewish people to Israel has not deterred these fanatics. In fact, it has only whetted their appetite. Iran's rulers say, 'Israel is a one-bomb country.' The head of Hizbullah says, 'If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide . . . ' The future of the Jewish state can never depend on the goodwill of even the greatest of men. Israel must always reserve the right to defend itself."


Who could argue with that? But for this statement of mere fact, Mr. Netanyahu is rebuked as "defiant," and accused of trying to drive a wedge between Mr. Obama, who wishes the Israelis wouldn't be so beastly to the Palestinians, and Congress, which can sometimes do the right thing when propped up by angry constituents.


Democrats were once regarded as the best friends Israel had — Harry S. Truman, a Democratic president and a Southern Baptist, was the first head of state to recognize Israel — but now it's the Republicans who are steadfast in support of the Jewish state. Says Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, chairman of the House Republican Conference: "I never thought I'd live to see the day that an American administration would denounce the Jewish state of Israel for rebuilding Jerusalem."


Some Democrats comfort themselves with the notion, understandable in the light of history, that American Jews will continue to vote Democratic no matter what Mr. Obama and his party do to undermine the Jewish state. The Israelis, under constant siege and occasional bombardment, are not so easily taken in. Benjamin Netanyahu's brother-in-law was widely scolded after he told an Israeli radio interviewer that he thinks Mr. Obama is "an anti-Semite." The prime minister distanced himself from the sentiment.

Accusations of anti-Semitism against the president are over-the-top, like the accusations of racism against anyone who sharply criticizes Mr. Obama, but it is certainly true that Mr. Obama has enjoyed the company of anti-Semites in the past — a "milieu," in the words of New Yorker magazine, "supposedly composed of incendiary preachers, black nationalists, fading Weathermen and . . . Palestinian intellectuals." (Milieus are fashionable on the Upper East Side and Chicago's South Side.) Mr. Obama has explained that while he did indeed submit his family to the moral guidance of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and he sat through 20 years of the preacher's Sunday-morning harangues about perfidious Jews and other evil white folks, he never heard the anti-Semitic rants, thus establishing a mark worthy of the Guinness Book of Records for sleeping through more than a thousand fiery sermons.


Benjamin Netanyahu is the bane of the Democrats, who only wish he would go away (or be taken away). That's because he understands the stakes in the Middle East, and wastes no time on prissy conversation over diplomatic tea cups. "Throughout history," he said, "the slanders against the Jewish people always preceded the physical assaults and were used to justify these assaults."


This is the kind of rhetoric that strengthens resolve in sensible and prudent men aware of the threat to their own extinction, but it upsets the tummies of certain Democrats secure behind the protection of better men than they. It makes their teeth itch. Better to think of bunnies, enjoy the music of little fairies and early spring flowers, and maybe trouble will go away. Barack Obama insists he's a friend of Israel. Some friend. Israel won't long survive if it has to depend on friends like him.


3d)Syria to Palestinians: Quit Mideast peace talks, resume violence


Syria and Libya teamed up Sunday to pressure Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to quit peace talks with Israel and return to violence, delegates to an Arab leadership summit said.

In the wake of that call, Arab leaders gathered at their summit Sirte, Libya on Sunday failed to reach a consensus on whether the Palestinians should resume stalled talks with Israel.

An adviser to the U.S.-backed Palestinian leader quickly rejected the suggestion, calling for the 22 nations represented at the gathering to be realistic. Despite the opposition from two of Israel's longtime foes, the summit had been expected Sunday to renew backing for Palestinian peace talks with Israel.

The Arab League has now scheduled an extraordinary summit for later
this year to tackle issues it had been unable to resolve during its two days of meeting.

A committee of foreign ministers from some member states produced a resolution at the meeting saying that a halt to all settlement activity was necessary for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations to go ahead.

But that decision was not adopted by the full summit and, in a sign of the lack of consensus, Syria's foreign minister said his country would not recognize the document as representing the view of the Arab League.

The calls to abandon the effort reflected the depth of frustration and anger over the stalled process and continued Israeli construction in areas claimed by the Palestinians, particularly East Jerusalem.

Syrian President Bashar Assad urged Abbas to withdraw from a U.S.-supported peace strategy and resume armed resistance to Israel, according to two delegates who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

They said Assad also urged Arab countries to halt any contacts with Israel, though only Cairo and Amman have peace deals with Israel.

"The price of resistance is not higher than the price of peace," one delegate quoted Assad as telling Abbas.

Summit host Moammar Gadhafi of Libya warned that his nation will withdraw support for an initiative launched at a 2002 Arab League summit in Beirut calling for exchanging land for peace with Israel, the delegates said.

Senior Abbas aide Nabil Abu Rdeneh dismissed the pressure.
"Let us be realistic. We will not follow those who have special agendas," he told Al-Jazeera television.

"We are ready for any Arab option. If they want to go to war let them declare that and mobilize their armies and their people and we will follow suit," Abu Rdeneh said.

Earlier this month, Arab nations opened the door for Abbas to enter four months of indirect, American-brokered peace talks with Israel. But they later threatened to withdraw support for the negotiations after Israel announced plans for new homes in East Jerusalem.

Speaking at the summit Saturday, Abbas urged Mideast peace brokers to push Israel to stop settlement construction, and he vowed that the Palestinians will not sign any peace deal with Israel unless the occupation of East Jerusalem ended.

He accused Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu's government of trying to
create a de facto situation in Jerusalem that would torpedo any future peace settlement.

The Palestinians are also asking Arab nations for millions of dollars in
funding for Palestinians living in East Jerusalem.

Arab League chief Amr Moussa urged leaders at the opening of the summit to create a new strategy to pressure Israel and stressed the peace process cannot be open ended.

The summit registered a higher than usual number of no-shows from Arab
leaders. Eight heads of state stayed away, including Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

Arab League calls for nuclear-free Mideast

Arab leaders on Sunday also called for a Middle East free of nuclear weapons during a closed-door session at the Arab League summit, diplomats at the meeting said.

Many Arab countries view Israel's alleged nuclear program and Iran's nuclear programs with alarm, and have repeatedly called for an agreement to ban nuclear weapons from the region.

In their closing statements, leaders stressed that the development of nuclear weapons threatened peace and security, diplomats who attended the closed-door session told the German Press Agency DPA.


They called for a review of the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in order to create a definitive plan for eliminating nuclear weapons development.

They further called upon the UN to hold a conference to establish the Middle East as a nuclear-weapons-free region. However, it is unclear how much weight their calls will carry with Iran or Israel, neither of which is a member in the Arab League.

Some delegations initially called for allowing a few Arab countries to possess nuclear weapons if Israel does not join the NPT within a certain period of time, but that proposal was left out of closing remarks.

One hundred eighty-nine countries, including all Arab states, are party to the NPT. Only Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea are not.

Arab leaders also called on the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, to terminate its technical assistance programs in Israel if the country does not join the NPT and allow inspections to begin.

Leaders and representatives of the 22 members of the Arab League began their two-day summit in Sirte on Saturday
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Will Terrorists Go Nuclear?
by Brian Michael Jenkins
New York: Prometheus Books, 2008. 457 pp. $27.

Reviewed by Susan M. Jellissen
Belmont University

Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2010

Jenkins, who has written extensively on terrorism and transportation security, poses an important question in the title of his ambitious book. There is perhaps no greater physical threat to the American homeland than a potential nuclear detonation by a terrorist organization. And while Jenkins frames his analysis around the notion of an amorphous terrorist organization launching a nuclear attack, Al-Qaeda figures prominently. Indeed, as Jenkins reminds us, its leaders have explicitly stated their intentions to employ nuclear weapons against the United States to create an "American Hiroshima."

Jenkins's purpose is less to address the likelihood of a terrorist nuclear attack than to argue that Americans have already succumbed to nuclear terror. He blames this phenomenon largely on media-hype, sensationalist popular fiction, and the opportunistic utterances of some government officials, notably in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. While Jenkins painstakingly seeks to dispel many of the myths propagated by these outlets regarding the inevitability, if not the imminence, of an actual nuclear disaster—and in this way attempts to calm American fears—he surprisingly points out that "some measure of fear is rational."

Herein lies a problem: When does Jenkins's notion of irrational fear become his idea of rational fear? In other words, how do we identify that tipping point? Jenkins offers no insight here.

In an interesting interlude, Jenkins presents the reader with an imagined scenario of a nuclear attack of unknown origin on New York city. However much he plays upon that unknown, Al-Qaeda is lurking everywhere. In fact, Jenkins boldly states that "Al-Qaeda must be utterly destroyed to prevent it from ever acquiring any weapons of mass destruction." But on the issue of motives (which Jenkins emphasizes), and if "religious imperatives" are at work and Al-Qaeda's "approach to war" is "derived from the Koran and Hadith" (as he suggests may very well be the case), then could we not expect new Al-Qaedas to emerge? And if so, does this not effectively amount to a sustained war on the Muslim world itself? But that does not seem to be what Jenkins has in mind.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)To only say Iranian nukes are unacceptable is to accept them
By William Kristol


In March 1936, Hitler occupied the Rhineland. The French prime minister, Leon Blum, denounced the act as "unacceptable." But France, Britain and the rest of the world accepted it. Years later, the French political thinker Raymond Aron commented, "To say that something is unacceptable was to say that one accepted it."

In March 2010, as Iran moved ahead with its nuclear weapons program, the American secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, speaking at the policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee last week, said no fewer than four times in one paragraph that a nuclear-armed Iran would be "unacceptable." It would be unacceptable simply, "unacceptable to the United States," "unacceptable to Israel" and "unacceptable to the region and the international community."

Then, perhaps sensing the ghost of Raymond Aron at her shoulder, Clinton hastened to add: "So let me be very clear: The United States is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


But this attempt at reassurance merely conjured up (at least for me) another ghost: that of Richard Nixon. Didn't Nixon always say, at moments of utmost insincerity, that he wanted to make something very clear?

What is becoming increasingly clear, from the Clinton speech and from the overall behavior of her administration -- and for that matter from the action or, rather, inaction of the "international community" -- is that we are all moving toward accepting an Iranian nuclear weapon.

Consider Clinton's speech.

The secretary of state devoted six paragraphs out of 52 to Iran.

She began by acknowledging that "for Israel, there is no greater strategic threat" than the prospect of the current Iranian regime with nuclear arms.

She explained how threatening such a prospect would be to Israel, the region and the world, culminating in the cascade of "unacceptables."

She then briefly defended the Obama administration's decision to try engagement, acknowledged (basically) that engagement had failed, but claimed that at least "[t]he world has seen that it is Iran, not the United States, responsible for the impasse." She noted that "with its secret nuclear facilities, increasing violations of its obligations under the nonproliferation regime and an unjustified expansion of its enrichment activities, more and more nations are finally expressing deep concerns about Iran's intentions."

And what are the newly perceptive and ever more deeply concerned nations of the world doing about Iran? "There is a growing international consensus on taking steps to pressure Iran's leaders to change course." What kind of pressure? New U.N. Security Council resolutions with "sanctions that will bite."

Now, these won't be quite the "crippling" sanctions Clinton promised last year -- but they'll be biting ones. (Then we learned, late in the week, that the sanctions were being adjusted so they wouldn't bite too much -- so as to get the "international community" on board.) Of course, three Security Council resolutions seeking to pressure Iran's leaders were passed during the Bush administration, before the great international awakening brought about by President Obama's engagement policy. Clinton had to acknowledge that "it is taking time to produce these new sanctions." But she maintained that "time is a worthwhile investment for winning the broadest possible support for our efforts." And she reiterated that "we will not compromise our commitment to preventing Iran from acquiring those nuclear weapons."

Notice what Clinton conspicuously failed to mention as part of that "commitment" -- another word, by the way, about whose unhappy diplomatic history Raymond Aron would undoubtedly have had mordant comments. What the secretary of state did not say is that all options are on the table. What she did not say is that force remains a last but credible resort against this regime's nuclear plans. What she did not say is that we would try to help the opposition change who "Iran's leaders" are.

So: Nothing about regime change. Nothing about the possible use of force. Just broadly supported "sanctions that will bite," but not too much.

Then Clinton turned -- one can almost hear the sigh of relief -- to other issues, because, after all, "Iran is not the only threat on the horizon. Israel is confronting some of the toughest challenges in her history." And we were off into the maze of the peace process, the settlements, and other ephemera and trivialities.

The Iranian regime and its pursuit of nuclear weapons constitute the dominant threat to the security of Israel and to the national security interests of the United States in the Middle East. While presidents Bush and Obama have proclaimed that this Iranian regime obtaining nuclear weapons would be unacceptable, they have done nothing effective to stop it. Now we are also apparently pressuring Israel not to act to stop Iran from getting nuclear arms.

Is it so hard to remember what happens when liberal democracies accept the unacceptable? Is it too much to hope that, for the government of the United States in 2010, accepting the unacceptable should be unacceptable?

William Kristol is editor of the Weekly Standard.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)This is a rant, but I assure you not a political rant. It is a rant on wasted effort and money.

All genealogists rely heavily on Census records. The Census is federally mandated every ten years. Its data may not be released to the public for 70 years after that. Thus, the 1940 Census should be released this year.

The 2010 Census is a total embarrassment and waste of money. It boils down to two questions: Who are you and are you a Latin; and who else is in your household and are they Latin. Let me here disclose I am not personally a Latin, but I am married to a Uruguayian, and my two sons are married one to a Brasilian and one to a Cuban.

I consider the 2010 Census an out and out Liberal attempt to insure proper gerrymandering and capture of the ever expanding Latin population.

Here are some prior Census data questions and imagine what you would have
designed had you been on the design committee for this Census.

Example questions from prior Censuses, still useful:
Relationship to head of household
Age or birth year
Place of birth
Own home or rent
Radio (TV), how many
Place of birth
Mother place of birth
Father place of birth
Year of immigration

In other words , this expensive effort could have provided both the governemnt and genealogist with considerable useful information had it been designed properly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7) DIFFERENT FROM WHAT I REMEMBER!

Mary had a little pig,
She kept it fat and plastered;
And when the price of pork went up,
She shot the little bastard.
********************

Mary had a little lamb.
Her father shot it dead.
Now it goes to school with her,
Between two hunks of bread.
********************
Jack and Jill went up the hill
To have a little fun.
Stupid Jill forgot the pill
And now they have a son.
********************
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the kings' horses,
And all the kings' men.
Had scrambled eggs,
For breakfast again.
********************
Hey diddle, diddle, the cat took a piddle,
All over the bedside clock.
The little dog laughed to see such fun.
Then died of electric shock.
********************
Georgie Porgy pudding and pie,
Kissed the girls and made them cry.
And when the boys came out to play,
He kissed them too 'cause he was gay.
********************
There was a little girl who had a little curl
Right in the middle of her forehead.
When she was good, she was very, very good.
But when she was bad.......
She got a fur coat, jewels, a waterfront condo, and a sports car.
******************************************************