Bernie Marcus Interviewed - Govt. Stifles Initiative!

As Islam worms its way into our society Abbas takes a page from their playbook and attempts the same with a different audience. (See 1 below.)
---
Conservatism works - do the math. Conservative waves cleanse. (See 2 below.)
---
No, Obama is allegedly not a Muslim but who and what does he represent? (See 3 below.)
---
Top Hamas leader whacked. You can run, hide but not survive?

Israel gave the Palestinians a chance and they failed so Israel intervened. (See 4 below.)
---
Clinton and Obama and their Russian reset button does not seem to be working. (See 5below.)

Maybe they could try a reset button with Israelis instead of subjecting them to stupidity. (See 5a below.)
---
Israel is alone according to Glick. By kowtowing to Obama, Netanyahu has trapped himself into concessions that are problematical in terms of Israel's security. Furthermore, Netanyahu now finds himself possibly negotiating simultaneously with Syria in the face of Russia supplying Syria with weaponry that can neutralize Israeli naval advantages.

Obama's soft power approach has accomplished nothing tangible. In fact, it has allowed Iran to proceed unheeded and the Palestinian Israeli peace talks serve to take attention off the Iranian nuclear ball. (See 6 below.)
---
Is it Tea Party Time? Noonan thinks so. She writes: "So far, the Tea Party is not a wing of the GOP but a critique of it."

Will it become the nucleus of a third party.(See 7 below.)

Powers advises media stop mocking what you do not understand. (See 7a below.)
---
Strassel on why Democrats lose on the tax battle. (See 8 below.)
---
Bernie Marcus, in his inimitable Borscht Belt style, was on Squawk Box today.

He spoke about the insanity of this administration's dependence upon academia who know nothing about running a small business. Though, Bernie and his associates founded Home Depot, which now employs over 300,000 people, he still associates with the small businessman because those were his roots.

Bernie told of his daily meetings with Atlanta small business people and the problems they are having with regulations, uncertainty and higher costs created by our 'friendly' government. He recounted a specific conversation he had with one small businessman who explained there was plenty of money available from banks but he was afraid to borrow because of the uncertain economic climate and increasing costs.

Time and again Bernie spoke about friends running sound businesses who were being forced to let people go because they could not afford to maintain their hiring levels.

In an aside, Bernie apologized to the American people for being an 'ugly wealthy man' who earns more than $250,000. I might point out that through his Marcus Foundation, Bernie and his wife have pledged to give away virtually all their accumulated wealth. Atlanta and various institutions in that city have been the recipient of their beneficence - the most visible being The Aquarium,The Marcus Jewish Center and various medical institutions.

I can vouch for how hard Bernie and his associates worked and how frightened they were when they opened their first store on Buford Highway and few customers showed. He related the story of how he and his wife were stocking shelves on his birthday.
I also recall him telling me how when they began purchasing light bulbs GE wanted to give Home Depot advertising credits etc. and Bernie said all they wanted was GE's cheapest price so Home Depot could offer the public the best price and they would do his own advertising.

I once asked Bernie what retailer he most admired and he said he only hoped Home Depot could become like Costco.

Bernie is now a multi billionaire, has any comfort life can bring yet, he comes across basically as the same person he was when I first met him some 35 years ago. His phone calls are returned by heads of government and he has been trying, unsuccessfully, to get Israel to adopt a Constitution for years. Bernie did influence Netanyahu and helped guide him when he served in Sharon's Cabinet as Israel's Economic Minister.

Bernie is an unabashed rational Capitalist and his story is an extraordinary one. Obama would be wise to listen to Bernie's words but our messiah is too much of a misguided and ill advised ideologue to understand Bernie's simple message - get stifling government out of the way, unleash American initiative so our nation can get back to work and maintain its former greatness.

Bernie believes American business leaders have both a right and responsibility to educate their workers about the consequences of bad policies and how they will effect their employment. He suggests Obama should send his own advisors out and run a small business for a while and learn how pernicious and crippling government regulations have become.

Bernie's message: Reward risk takers because that is what our nation once was all about and egalitarianism simply disincentives.

(It is interesting to note today Obama appointed another Czar so the government can protect the consumer. We now will have a department if government bureaucrats protecting stupid consumers from their inability to reason.)

Glenn Hubbard (now dean of Columbia Business School and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors) was also interviewed and his book, jointly written with Pete Petersen, "Seeds of Destruction," was discussed. The essence of the book's message is that our problems will take a long time to solve and we must decide what level of government we want, how we will pay for that government. To date most government policies have been destructive because of the mis-match between short term oriented solutions for problems of a long term nature.

Marcus was asked about his thoughts and he concurred and pointed out he was not only blaming Obama but GW who also walked off the reservation with inane spending.

When asked about taxing the wealthy Hubbard pointed out we could have confiscatory policies but they would not solve our long term problems.

Bernie summed up his visit by saying he would love to teach a course at Harvard entitled "Courage 101."

Lamentably, Marcus doubts Home Depot could be started today and if we do not learn from the failures in Europe we will have our lunch eaten and, though, he does not agree with everything Tea Partiers say he believes they have energized the political system and that is good.

Following Marcus, this Monday, CNBC is hosting a town hall meeting with Obama.
---
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1)In a repeat of a strategy he embarked on just three months ago, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is meeting with American Jewish leaders in New York next week.


Writes reporter Herb Keinon in Friday's Jerusalem Post, "Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is scheduled to meet a group of Jewish leaders in New York on Tuesday for the second time in three months, even though there were those among the invited guests concerned he is using these meetings to place pressure on the Israeli government. Some of the invited guests said Abbas realized the importance of the Jews in the US and was trying to 'neutralize' them."

Clearly part of the Palestinian strategy is to put pressure on Israel via any means possible, including meetings with American Jewish leaders. Hopefully, those in attendance will display the good judgment to not allow themselves to be set up as intermediaries between the Palestinians and Israelis and refrain from telling Abbas what they think Israel should or shouldn't do.

We are in the midst of sensitive negotiations that can affect the future of the Jewish state and the entire Middle East, and one of the best ways that American Jews can serve Israel is by educating themselves about Israel's difficulties and dilemmas and explaining to our fellow Americans the rationale behind Israel's positions.

Moreover, we ought to keep our opinions in check and encourage all to respect the right of the Israelis themselves to make the decisions that they think are in the best interests of their country.

As we head into Yom Kippur, this is a vow worth making.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Do the (Thirty-Year) Math: The Consultants Are Wrong
By C. Edmund Wright

So the inside-the-Beltway political pros are all in a tizzy that their omnipotence is being questioned by the great unwashed in the Tea Party movement.


In reaction to the Christine O'Donnell win and the part that Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint played in it, veteran consultant Mark Murphy snarked that he too was a conservative -- but that he "could do the math." The point from Murphy was that conservatives like Palin and DeMint are not smart enough to do the math that a Mike Castle win in Delaware is really what conservatives needed.


Tea party-type conservatives, according to Murphy, are not smart enough to figure out the professional math. The Murphys' polls and focus groups and formulaic opinions about the "undecideds" say so.


History says otherwise.


There have been three great elections for Republicans in modern history -- '80, '84 and '94 -- and all three were the result of a wave of conservatism. There have been five awful elections - '92, '96, '98, '06 and '08 -- and all the result of purposeful moderation.


The rest have fallen somewhere in between, with Republican success mainly the result of the Democrats doing us a favor by swerving way left. The three-decade trend is clear.


Republicans do best when they go the most conservative. They can succeed somewhat if the Democrats let their liberalism show in the campaign. But when the waters are muddied, it is always a disaster for Republicans.


So, Mr. Murphy, get out your calculator and follow along.


The years 1980 and '84 were two of the great election results for Republicans, with the solid and unabashed conservatism of Ronald Reagan leading the way. In 1980, Reagan administered a whipping to an incumbent, and in '84, he won 49 states. The only effort to reach the independents was to invite them to join the GOP on the solid right.


The year 1988 delivered a somewhat successful election, as the nation thought that Bush 41 would be a continuation of Reaganism -- helped by the fact that Mike Dukakis bragged about his ACLU membership. We didn't fully understand a "kinder and gentler" Republican party yet.


1992: By now, we fully understood "kinder and gentler." This was magnified by the fact that Ross Perot siphoned off some conservatives. Clinton won the only way Democrats can -- the opposite of how Republican win -- by appearing moderate. Incumbent Bush got only 38% of the vote. Disaster.


1994: The third fabulous election for Republicans -- the result of the very conservative Contract with America in contrast to Clinton's most liberal policy, failed HillaryCare. Again, the appeal to independents was to join the Contract with America on the right.


1996: Dole-Kemp, a moderate disaster, gets soundly defeated by a Lewinsky-weakened Clinton. Who can forget Jack Kemp's "thank you Al" moment? Thank you, Jack.


1998: There was only one really conservative campaign in the nation: that of Jesse Ventura who ran way right of both other candidates in Minnesota. (He governed as a moderate and left in disgrace four years later).


2000: Bush-Cheney eked out a win over Gore-Lieberman. Bush ran as somewhat conservative and got cover from Gore's obvious liberalism. The "new tone" is born as a result of the close election.


2002: The far-left Wellstone Memorial allows for Republicans to have success while running an only somewhat conservative campaign.


2004: Far left Kerry-Edwards again got cover from the only moderately conservative campaign of Bush 43.


2006: Moderate disaster led by Dennis Hastert and Bush's faltering conservatism.


2008: McCain. Oh, let's "reach across the aisle." Enough said.


Now, Mr. Murphy, how is your math holding up? But wait, it gets worse for your case.


When Republicans have had moderates win elections, it has often set the stage for future disasters. To name a few: Charlie Crist, Arlen Specter, and Jumpin' Jim Jeffords. So, Mr. Murphy, since it's safe to bet that all three of these guys had the backing of the establishment Republican strategists -- how is that math holding up?


And it gets even worse.


In fact, the existence of the power base of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi is the direct result of directionless moderate Republicans giving the appearance of being "the party in power." The truth is that Bush got in trouble when he signed legislation put forth by Democrats with the help of the moderate and liberal Republicans. To the American voter, all such damage accrues to the "party in power."


Because Bush was in the White House and the GOP had the House and the Senate, all of the blame went to the GOP. Ironic, isn't it? Most of the bad stuff was actually Democrat legislation. These were things supported by the likes of McCain, Snowe, Graham, Collins, Hagel, Hayes, Castle -- and on and on.


And yet because of how our system works, the party that is the only home of conservatism got thrown out for being too liberal. And they got thrown out by the most radically liberal group in our history.


This is the math that these Beltway left-brain number-crunchers never crunch. Mr. Murphy, can I get you a drink?


The problem is this: the consultants are too busy being thermometers instead of thermostats. They take the temperature and then figure out a way that their candidate clients can match that temperature.


It never occurs to them that their candidate might actually take a stand and invite the independents to join them. Reagan did this. Gingrich did in 1994. (OK, so he doesn't now. He did then.) They were more like thermostats. They set the terms of the debate and invited everyone to share in the wonders of this country as defined by Constitution-based conservatism.


They never changed to match what they perceived the beliefs of the moderates to be.


And that's the reality that the consultant nation just cannot wrap their heads around. Inside the Beltway, it is just so pervasive a thought pattern that none of the pros can think outside that tiny little box.


But history is clear -- and so is the math. Conservatism works, every time it's tried. Mr. Murphy, it's so easy that even a political hack can do it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Obama, Dhimmi President
By Carol A. Taber

The slumlord Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has spent the past several weeks lecturing us that if we don't allow him to build a mosque at Ground Zero, we will be provoking Islamic violence. "Our national security now hinges on how we negotiate this, how we speak about it, and what we do," he intoned on CNN.


[T]he headline in the Muslim world will be Islam is under attack in America, this will strengthen the radicals in the Muslim world, help their recruitment, this will put our people -- our soldiers, our troops, our embassies, our citizens - under attack in the Muslim world and we have expanded and given and fueled terrorism.


President Obama has echoed this message with regard to the near-burning of the Koran by Pastor Terry Jones last week. He said that burning a Koran would provoke "serious violence" against Americans in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and that it would provide a "recruitment bonanza for al-Qaeda." Whether the success of a "strong horse" building a triumphal mosque/community center on the ruins of Ground Zero also would be used as a "recruitment bonanza for al-Qaeda" was not mentioned. This is odd, because everyone who knows an atom about the Islamist mindset knows this interpretation of the world to be absolutely, although not uniquely, theirs.


It's predictable enough to hear this Americans-exercising-their-rights-causes-terrorism-so-it's-their-fault message from a terror-supporter like Rauf, who considers it his obligation to push America into dialogue with terrorist groups like Hamas. But from President Obama, our nation's Commander-in-Chief, whose most important responsibility is to protect American citizens from "enemies both foreign and domestic," this message is disgustingly candy-assed.


As Mr. Obama is fond of saying, this was a teachable moment...or it could have been. It was not a moment to teach the Muslim world about how we value the Koran or to teach Americans about how or why we should respect Islam. It could have been a teachable moment for the Muslim world. It was a chance for the President of the United States to demonstrate to the Muslim world that we will not back down in the face of psychotic ragefests, that we will continue to exercise our rights as we see fit, and -- the truest lesson in tolerance -- that we will allow people to commit offensive acts with which we disagree even if we disagree with them.


Instead, Obama shilled on behalf of the Islamists yet again. He made excuses for primitives across the globe to engage in their favorite party game: berserk, vein-popping raging; burning American flags; and blowing up such worthless items as human beings of all stripes and 7th-century statues of Buddha. Obama justified their violence. He was the ridiculous third-grade teacher who watches two kids call each other names, then observes as one of the kids breaks a coke bottle over the other one's head, and then finally condemns the bleeding-from-his-eyeballs kid for having engaged in the great unwashed, uncivilized act of name-calling.


You'd never hear the we-cause-violence message from Obama with regard to domestic politics. When crazed wretches like Joe Stack fly planes into buildings, Obama wrongly attempts to blame conservative talk show hosts. He'd never blame a suffocating tax policy for enraging Stack, as Stack himself declared. Yet when Muslims fly planes into buildings, Obama blames America's insensitivity and hegemony and insists that we all bow to the impulses of people who steadfastly prefer open sewage to flushing toilets.


In 2007, Christopher Hitchens wrote a piece for Salon.com in which he talked about "Rage Boy," a random Muslim protester who was constantly in the eye of the camera whenever the West "provoked" the so-called Muslim street. "We may have to put up with the Rage Boys of the world," Hitchens penned, "but we ought not to do their work for them." Obama does their work for them.


At worst, this could be construed as Obama's openly Marxist predilection for the Muslim world over Western civilization. At best, this is dhimmitude in action.


"Dhimmitude" is a word first used by historian Bat Ye'or to describe the phenomenon of non-Muslims living in Muslim lands. Historically, under Koranic law, non-Muslims in Muslim areas were considered dhimmi and forced to pay a head tax, or jizya, simply to live there. They also had to find ways to go along to get along, which generally required silence to outrages and subservience to Islamic law.


Everything Obama is pursuing fits this profile. Born to a Muslim father, he spent critical part of his his childhood living in a Muslim land. One presumes he is not now Muslim, and he professes to be a Christian. Nonetheless, he speaks dreamily about his love for the azaan, the Muslim call to prayer, which he told Nicholas Kristof was "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset," and he even went so far as to speak the first few lines to Kristoff "with a first-rate accent," according to the butt-kissing columnist.


He told the Muslim world that his job as President of the United States is to "fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear." (Where that directive is in Article II of the Constitution isn't clear.) He even dedicates government resources to kowtowing to a single religion -- Islam -- hence NASA chief Charles Bolden's bizarre statement that his top priority is to "find a way to reach out to the Muslim world" and the unsurprising yet peculiar act of Americans paying for mosque construction projects overseas. According to the Washington Times, the U.S taxpayers, among funding other mosque projects,


... helped save the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque in Cairo, which dates back to 642. The mosque's namesake was the Muslim conqueror of Christian Egypt, who built the structure on the site where he had pitched his tent before doing battle with the country's Byzantine rulers. For those who think the Ground Zero Mosque is an example of "Muslim triumphalism" glorifying conquest, the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque is an example of such a monument - and one paid for with U.S. taxpayer funds.


I wonder how many Americans know that?


Obama speaks like a dhimmi, acts like a dhimmi, and spends like a dhimmi. This latest incident, in which Obama acted as press spokesperson for unleashed Islamist crazies rather than as a president duty-bound to protect the clearly-spelled-out constitutional rights of law-abiding American citizens, simply demonstrates, in my opinion, that Obama doesn't believe we're in an American world. This is a Muslim world, Obama thinks, and we're just living in it. I tend to disagree. Aside from the "rich heritage" Obama claims that Muslims have here in America, you heard it here first: no pilgrim I ever knew prayed to Mecca five times a day. Take it to the bank.


As David French said in NationalReview.com, "If we can't possibly appease the enemy, why even contemplate giving up our freedoms?" Why? Because we appear to have a dhimmi president, and he's asking that we accept our dhimmitude, just as he has.


Where are the real men when we need them?


Carol A. Taber is president of FamilySecurityMatters.org.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Top Hamas operative killed in pre-Yom Kippur IDF counter-terror operation


IDF troops raid Nur Shams refugee campEarly Friday, Sept. 17, a joint Israeli military-Shin Bet unit raided the Nur a-Shams camp in the West Bank town of Tulkarm and killed Iyad Assad Ahmad Abu Shalbaya, identified as deputy chief of the Hamas cells which waylaid and murdered 4 Israelis near Hebron on Aug. 30 and injured a couple at the Rimonim junction on Sept. 1. This was Israel's first major operation against known Palestinian terrorist chiefs in some years. It was carried out after Palestinian security forces failed to catch up with the perpetrators.

Shalbaya was caught in the dragnet the IDF and undercover units have cast across the northern and southern West Bank areas since early this week to thwart the wave of terror Hamas threatened for the purpose of derailing talks with the Palestinians and hitting Israel over the Jewish Yom Kippur festival which begins Friday night.

The Palestinians claim Shalbaya was killed in his bed. The Israeli army spokesman reports he was shot as he ran toward them in a threatening manner and refused to stop.

His chief, Banshath al-Karmi, 34, of Hebron, is actively sought along with the Hamas cells preparing to strike in the next 24 hours, according to the latest intelligence input. Jerusalem appears to be a particular target. From Thursday night, Sept. 16, measures have been in place to keep bomb cars out of the capital, including a ban on the movement of vehicles from the Arab sector of East Jerusalem to the Israeli city as of Friday.

Military sources add that time will tell if Israel's counter-terror operations have been effective in stalling Hamas' plans or, just the opposite, galvanized Hamas into more extreme action, either on the part of their hidden West Bank cells in which the terrorist group invested great efforts, or in the form of another missile barrage from the Gaza Strip to follow the assaults of this week.

Shin Bet Director Yuval Diskin warned the Israeli cabinet session Sunday, Sept. 12 that the Hamas military arm Izz-e-din al-Qassam had given all its teams strict orders to go all-out in order to bring about the collapse of the Israel-Palestinian talks begun at Sharm el-Sheikh on Sept. 13.

Sources disclose that Hamas' West Bank commander, Al-Karmi, was arrested by the IDF in 1999, a year before the Palestinians launched their suicide killers' war on Israel. He was held for three years. Shortly after his release in 2002, he was picked up again and held in administrative detention for three months.
In 2004, he was shot and seriously injured during an IDF operation in Hebron and restricted to a wheel chair for a long period. Nonetheless, Al-Karmi has always been the live wire of Hamas' organs of terror on the West bank. Last year, he was appointed commander of the new clandestine network Hamas set up in the territory.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5)Russia: We will provide Syria with advanced missiles, despite Israel, U.S. protests
Remark by Russia defense minster comes amid reports that Israeli officials, including PM Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak, had reportedly warned arms could be used by Hezbollah.


Russia plans to go ahead with its sale of advance anti-ship rockets, state news agency RIA Novosti quoted Russian Defense Minster Anatoly Serdyukov as saying on Friday, despite recent attempts by U.S. and Israeli officials to thwart the planned deal.


The deal involves the sale of advanced P-800 Yakhont supersonic cruise missiles to the Syrian military, weaponry which Israel considers as capable of posing significant danger to its navy vessels in the Mediterranean Sea.

Last month, Haaretz reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had tried to sway his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, from completing the deal, reportedly saying the missiles could be transferred to Hezbollah and used against IDF troops, as was the case in the Second Lebanon War.

Speaking Friday, however, the Russian defense minister indicated that Russia would indeed go forward with the 2007 contract, saying that "the issue of selling the missiles to Syria was raised during the talks with U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates... Undoubtedly, it [the contract] would be fulfilled by the Russian side."

Responding to the Haaretz report last month, Sergei Prikhodko, a senior adviser to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, told RIA Novosti that Moscow would fulfill all agreements it had made with foreign countries and would not halt the deal.

"Lately, some Israeli media outlets have been actively disseminating information distorting Russia's position on the implementation of its obligations to Syria, including in the sphere of military and technical cooperation," Prikhodko said. "I would like to stress that the Russian Federation honors all the agreements that were previously signed between Russia and Syria."

In his talks with Putin last month, Netanyahu indicated Syria's transfer of advanced Russian anti-tank missiles to Hezbollah during the 2006 war, also mentioning the incident in which Syrian-acquired Chinese-made C-802 anti-shipping missiles were used by Hezbollah to target an Israeli destroyer.

Earlier this month, Defense Minister Ehud Barak made another reported attempt to stop the planned arms deal in conversations with both Putin and the Russian defense minister during his official visit to Russia.

5a)Weekly Commentary: Clinton Proposal Insults Israels Intelligence
By Dr. Aaron Lerner

Secretary of State Clinton’s proposal that Israel extend the settlement
freeze for three months is an insult to our intelligence.

The logic behind the three month freeze is that the final borders will be
agreed upon within the three month so that construction taking place after
the three month extension would take place in areas that the Palestinians
already agreed Israel could retain.

Let’s walk through the most possible scenarios:

Scenario #1: Agreement isn’t reached within the three months. So the freeze
is extended in a series of additional 3 month extensions in perpetuity or
until agreement is reached on the borders – whichever comes first.

Scenario #2: Agreement is reached on borders contingent on reaching
agreement on security and other arrangements. From that moment on the map
with a border line takes on a life of its own. A life not only independent
of the resolution of a myriad of issues still on the table but even ignoring
the notations the Israeli team took such great care to include in the map.
From the moment that the map exists the only thing that matters is getting
Israel to withdraw to the final lines. An impatient world slams Israel for
its “unrealistic” security demands and insulting lack of willingness to
simply rely on third party guarantees and/or observer forces to assure
Israel’s security. Ditto for other Israeli demands.

Either way, extension of the freeze by another three months gains nothing
for Israel and only invites more pressure on Prime Minister Netanyahu to
make additional unilateral concessions.

You know what Mrs. Clinton?

If it is so important to the United States of America that Israel extend the
freeze for three months then why not do something really bold:

Instead of insulting our intelligence with arguments as to how extending the
freeze three months serves Israel’s interests why not give us an offer that
would be hard to refuse.

Publicly offer to free Jonathan Pollard in exchange for a three month freeze
extension.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) Israel, alone
By Caroline B. Glick

Netanyahu has effectively stifled Israel's defenders


The current flurry of diplomatic activity is deeply disturbing. It isn't simply that the Obama administration has strong-armed Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu into participating in diplomatic theater with the PLO whose successful completion will leave Israel weaker and less defensible. It isn't merely that the newest "peace process" diverts our leadership's attention away from Iran and its nuclear weapons program.

The most disturbing aspect of the latest round of the diplomatic kabuki is that Israel's leaders and Israel's staunch friends in the US are enthusiastically participating in this dangerous project.

True, Netanyahu is in an unenviable position situated as he is between US President Barack Obama's rock and hard place. Instead of standing up to this hostile American leader, Netanyahu is desperately seeking a magical concession to get Obama off his back.

Netanyahu's preference for appeasement is both ironic and destructive. It is ironic because he has turned to appeasement at the very moment that the notion it is possible to appease Obama has self-destructed.

Ten months ago Netanyahu found what he hoped was a magic concession. Capitulating to Obama, the Jewish state's leader prohibited all Jewish building in Judea and Samaria for a period of ten months. This unprecedented move to discriminate against Jews was supposed to get Obama off Netanyahu's back. It didn't.

Obama's public demand this week that Netanyahu extend the abrogation of Jewish property rights shows he will not be appeased. There is no magic concession. Every concession to Obama — like every Israeli concession to the Arabs — is considered both permanent and a starting point for further concessions.

And so Netanyahu concedes more. Not only has he effectively agreed to extend the discriminatory ban on Jewish rights. Netanyahu has moved on to even more outrageous concessions. According to the Lebanese media, Netanyahu has agreed to surrender large swathes of the Golan Heights to Iran's Arab puppet, Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. According to the reports, Netanyahu empowered Obama's emissary George Mitchell to present his offer to Assad in Damascus and even furnished Mitchell with detailed maps of his proposed surrender.

If Netanyahu thinks that this move will diminish US pressure for a full withdrawal from Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria, he is in for an unpleasant surprise. Mitchell made this clear at his press conference Wednesday. Mitchell said the "two tracks can be complementary and mutually beneficial if we can proceed to a comprehensive peace on more than one track."

In plain English that means that the administration feels perfectly comfortable pressuring Israel to surrender to the Syrians and to the Palestinians at the same time.

Leaving aside the strategic insanity of surrender talks with Syria, it cannot be said too strongly that the talks with the Palestinians have absolutely no upside for Israel.

Many observers have pointed out that PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas is unlikely to make a deal. And this is probably true. With Hamas in charge in Gaza and widely supported in Judea and Samaria, Abbas will probably not risk signing a peace deal with Israel that will likely serve as his death warrant.

But the same observers who bemoan the poor chances for a treaty ignore the fact that the alternative — that Abbas signs a peace deal with Israel — would be a disaster for Israel. Any deal Israel signs with the PLO will make the country weaker. We know this because we have already signed deals with the PLO. And all of those deals made Israel weaker.

All the agreements between Israel and the PLO have been predicated on Israeli territorial surrenders and Palestinian promises of moderation. Israel has implemented its commitments and surrendered land to the PLO. The PLO has never abided by its commitment to moderate its behavior. To the contrary, the PLO's response to every agreement has been to escalate its political and terror war against Israel.

The Palestinian terror war that began in September 2000 was the direct result of the Oslo "peace" agreement of September 1993 that created the framework for Israeli land surrenders to the PLO, and the framework agreement's follow-on agreements. The terror attacks that have killed and wounded thousands of Israelis would never have happened — indeed they would have been inconceivable — had Israel not withdrawn from Gaza, Judea and Samaria in accordance with peace deals it signed with the PLO.

The track record of the past 17 years demonstrates that withdrawals are dangerous. But still the "peace deal" now on offer is predicated on withdrawals.

Obama and his advisors claim that these talks will improve Israel's relations with the wider Arab world. But again the last 17 years expose this claim as fatuous and wrong. Israeli land surrenders in exchange for pieces of paper have not convinced the Arab League member states to accept Israel as a permanent state in the Middle East. They have convinced Israel's Arab neighbors that Israel is weak and getting weaker. This in turn has signaled to the wider Arab world that its best bet is to join forces with the likes of Hamas and fund and otherwise actively support the war against the Jewish State.

Engaging in the phony "peace process" isn't only bad because there is little prospect for reaching and deal or because any potential deal would be a disaster for Israel. There are three additional reasons the government's decision to engage in this diplomatic psychodrama is terrible for Israel.

First, there is great harm in talking. Talking to Abbas and his deputies legitimizes a Palestinian leadership that is wholly committed to Israel's destruction. As Abbas and his mouthpieces make clear on a daily basis, they do not accept Israel's right to exist. They do not condemn or oppose the murder of Israelis by Palestinians. They will not accept a deal with Israel that leaves Israel in control over sufficient lands to defend itself from Palestinian or other Arab attacks in the future. And they will never end or abate their diplomatic war against Israel.

The very act of legitimizing the likes of Abbas expands their ability to wage diplomatic war on Israel.

Second, just as Netanyahu's magic concessions to the Americans are but a starting point for further magic concessions, so Israel's willingness to engage in talks with its Palestinian adversaries forces our leaders to concede still more important things to maintain them. For instance, today in the face of a clear Hamas terror offensive that has already claimed the lives of four Israelis and sent tens of thousands running for cover in bomb shelters, Israel is compelled to sit on its hands. An effective campaign against Palestinian jihadists would weaken the PLO because most Palestinians support the jihad against Israel. In the interest of "peace," Hamas is allowed to attack at will.

So simply by agreeing to talk with the Palestinians, the government has made it all but impossible to carry out its primary function — defending the country and its citizens from aggression.

The third reason that the talks are inherently against Israel's interests is because they undermine Israeli democracy. Consistent, multiyear polling shows that the public overwhelmingly rejects more withdrawals. The public rejects any compromise in Jerusalem. The public rejects maintaining prohibitions on Jewish building. The public rejects expelling Jews from their homes. And the public rejects withdrawing from the Golan Heights.

Recognizing this, the Obama administration has insisted that the content of the current talks remain hidden from the public. As far as Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Mitchell are concerned, they are better judges of the prospects and wisdom of these talks than the Israeli public that will have to live with their consequences. By agreeing to these demands, Netanyahu is collaborating with a project that is inherently anti-democratic and harmful to Israel's political order.

There is another aspect of the current diplomatic season that is upsetting. This aspect involves the negotiations' deleterious role in shaping Israel's position and options in the US.

When Netanyahu announced he was caving to White House pressure and barring Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria last November, his defenders argued it was necessary given Obama's relative political strength at the time. But a lot has changed in the past ten months.

Today Obama is deeply unpopular. The Democrats are likely to lose their control over the House of Representatives, and at a minimum, their hold on the Senate will be diminished. Today Israel has nothing to gain and much to lose by bowing and scraping before Obama.

True, Obama's positions on issues relating to Israel are not likely to substantively change after November 2. But Obama's ability to implement his policies will be seriously constrained. Indeed, the anticipated Republican resurgence has already incapacitated him.

By playing along with Obama's sham peace talks, Netanyahu has made it difficult for Israel's supporters in the US to explain why these talks are dangerous and offer a counter-policy that is based on experience and reality. Even worse, Netanyahu has encouraged Israel's friends to support what Obama is doing.

This much was made clear by an article penned last week by syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer titled, "Your move, Mr. Abbas."

Krauthammer is widely perceived by the American public as a firm supporter of Israel. His many readers — who by and large are not close observers of Middle East events — defer to his judgment.

Unfortunately, his latest column shows that trust is unfounded. Krauthammer wrote, "No serious player believes [Israel] can hang on forever to the West Bank."

Not only do many serious players believe Israel can — and indeed should — hang on forever to Judea and Samaria, most close observers of events in the Middle East recognize that the central lesson of the past 17 years is that Israel must hang on to Judea and Samaria. The partial territorial surrenders Israel conducted in the 1990s led to the murder of more than a thousand Israel. Ceding these areas entirely would imperil the country. Even Clinton acknowledged this week that the current situation can continue for thirty years. And as all close observers and serious players in the Middle East know, thirty years is tantamount to forever.

Given Krauthammer's tremendous influence in shaping public opinion and policy in the US, his arrogant and false portrayal of reality is debilitating. This is particularly true in the current electoral season where Americans are seriously questioning the received wisdom of their policy elite for the first time in a generation. Now not only will Israel's supporters need to battle the administration for the US to adopt a rational policy towards the Palestinians and Israel. They will need to battle their supposed allies on the Right.

But while devastating, Krauthammer's position is a side issue at the end of the day. Krauthammer is not the man charged with defending Israel. He's a newspaper columnist and television commentator.

The man charged with leading and defending Israel is Netanyahu. Netanyahu is the man who stood for election. Netanyahu is the man who is responsible for leading and defending this country. And Netanyahu is the man that is now leading us on a path to degradation and defeat.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7)Why It's Time for the Tea Party The populist movement is more a critique of the GOP than a wing of it.
By PEGGY NOONAN

This fact marks our political age: The pendulum is swinging faster and in shorter arcs than it ever has in our lifetimes. Few foresaw the earthquake of 2008 in 2006. No board-certified political professional predicted, on Election Day 2008, what happened in 2009-10 (New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts) and has been happening, and will happen, since then. It all moves so quickly now, it all turns on a dime.

But at this moment we are witnessing a shift that will likely have some enduring political impact. Another way of saying that: The past few years, a lot of people in politics have wondered about the possibility of a third party. Would it be possible to organize one? While they were wondering, a virtual third party was being born. And nobody organized it.

Here is Jonathan Rauch in National Journal on the Tea Party's innovative, broad-based network: "In the expansive dominion of the Tea Party Patriots, which extends to thousands of local groups and literally countless activists," there is no chain of command, no hierarchy. Individuals "move the movement." Popular issues gain traction and are emphasized, unpopular ones die. "In American politics, radical decentralization has never been tried on such a large scale." Here are pollsters Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen in the Washington Examiner: "The Tea Party has become one of the most powerful and extraordinary movements in American political history." "It is as popular as both the Democratic and Republican parties." "Over half of the electorate now say they favor the Tea Party movement, around 35 percent say they support the movement, 20 to 25 percent self-identify as members of the movement."

So far, the Tea Party is not a wing of the GOP but a critique of it. This was demonstrated in spectacular fashion when GOP operatives dismissed Tea Party-backed Christine O'Donnell in Delaware. The Republican establishment is "the reason we even have the Tea Party movement," shot back columnist and Tea Party enthusiast Andrea Tantaros in the New York Daily News. It was the Bush administration that "ran up deficits" and gave us "open borders" and "Medicare Part D and busted budgets."

Everyone has an explanation for the Tea Party that is actually not an explanation but a description. They're "angry." They're "antiestablishment," "populist," "anti-elite." All to varying degrees true. But as a network television executive said this week, "They should be fed up. Our institutions have failed."


I see two central reasons for the Tea Party's rise. The first is the yardstick, and the second is the clock. First, the yardstick. Imagine that over at the 36-inch end you've got pure liberal thinking—more and larger government programs, a bigger government that costs more in the many ways that cost can be calculated. Over at the other end you've got conservative thinking—a government that is growing smaller and less demanding and is less expensive. You assume that when the two major parties are negotiating bills in Washington, they sort of lay down the yardstick and begin negotiations at the 18-inch line. Each party pulls in the direction it wants, and the dominant party moves the government a few inches in their direction.

But if you look at the past half century or so you have to think: How come even when Republicans are in charge, even when they're dominant, government has always gotten larger and more expensive? It's always grown! It's as if something inexorable in our political reality—with those who think in liberal terms dominating the establishment, the media, the academy—has always tilted the starting point in negotiations away from 18 inches, and always toward liberalism, toward the 36-inch point.

Democrats on the Hill or in the White House try to pull it up to 30, Republicans try to pull it back to 25. A deal is struck at 28. Washington Republicans call it victory: "Hey, it coulda been 29!" But regular conservative-minded or Republican voters see yet another loss. They could live with 18. They'd like 8. Instead it's 28.

For conservatives on the ground, it has often felt as if Democrats (and moderate Republicans) were always saying, "We should spend a trillion dollars," and the Republican Party would respond, "No, too costly. How about $700 billion?" Conservatives on the ground are thinking, "How about nothing? How about we don't spend more money but finally start cutting."


What they want is representatives who'll begin the negotiations at 18 inches and tug the final bill toward 5 inches. And they believe Tea Party candidates will do that.

The second thing is the clock. Here is a great virtue of the Tea Party: They know what time it is. It's getting late. If we don't get the size and cost of government in line now, we won't be able to. We're teetering on the brink of some vast, dark new world—states and cities on the brink of bankruptcy, the federal government too. The issue isn't "big spending" anymore. It's ruinous spending that they fear will end America as we know it, as they promised it to their children.

So there's a sense that dramatic action is needed, and a sense of profound urgency. Add drama to urgency and you get the victory of a Tea Party-backed candidate.

That is the context. Local Tea Parties seem—so far—not to be falling in love with the particular talents or background of their candidates. It's more detached than that. They don't say their candidates will be reflective, skilled in negotiations, a great senator, a Paul Douglas or Pat Moynihan or a sturdy Scoop Jackson. These qualities are not what they think are urgently needed. What they want is someone who will walk in, put her foot on the conservative end of the yardstick, and make everything slip down in that direction.

Nobody knows how all this will play out, but we are seeing something big—something homegrown, broad-based and independent. In part it is a rising up of those who truly believe America is imperiled and truly mean to save her. The dangers, both present and potential, are obvious. A movement like this can help a nation by acting as a corrective, or it can descend into a corrosive populism that celebrates unknowingness as authenticity, that confuses showiness with seriousness and vulgarity with true conviction. Parts could become swept by a desire just to tear down, to destroy. But establishments exist for a reason. It is true that the party establishment is compromised, and by many things, but one of them is experience. They've lived through a lot, seen a lot, know the national terrain. They know how things work. They know the history. I wonder if Tea Party members know how fragile are the institutions that help keep the country together.

One difference so far between the Tea Party and the great wave of conservatives that elected Ronald Reagan in 1980 is that latter was a true coalition—not only North and South, East and West but right-wingers, intellectuals who were former leftists, and former Democrats. When they won presidential landslides in 1980, '84 and '88, they brought the center with them. That in the end is how you win. Will the center join arms and work with the Tea Party? That's a great question of 2012.

7a)Stop Mocking the Tea Party
by Kirsten Powers Info

The media doesn’t get it, says Kirsten Powers. The Tea Party crowd is about to radically reshape the Republican Party on a scale not seen since Barry Goldwater in the 1960s.

It’s time to stop mocking the Tea Party.

Whether they are loons, principled conservatives, or a mix of both, they are a potent force that won’t be intimidated off the national stage by snarky media coverage and clueless attacks from the establishment.

Whether they are loons, principled conservatives, or a mix of both, Tea Partiers are a potent political force. (Mark Humphrey / AP Photo) In fact, they are clearly poised as the heir to the Goldwater movement that was also ridiculed by elites in both parties during the early 1960s.

Yes, Goldwater was demolished by Lyndon Johnson in the landslide that was the 1964 presidential election. But his crowning accomplishment was igniting the flames of a conservative movement that would eventually lead to the election of Ronald Reagan, ushering in eight years of conservative realignment. To this day, conservatives rule the Republican Party which, prior to Goldwater, wasn’t the case.

Every Tea Party candidate has been described as being crazy, stupid, and on track to destroy America if they are elected. Funny, that’s pretty much what was said about Barry Goldwater and his followers.

It’s those conservatives who today are fed up and demanding that the Republican Party stick to the principles they run on.

The Washington establishment has its nose out of joint because a rag-tag group of misfits have deigned to challenge the entitled incompetents who run the U.S. Congress. Somehow, because a few of the Tea Party candidates support abstinence training, or other garden variety right-wing notions, they are more dangerous than the people who were actually in charge of our country as it was being run into the ground economically.

We’ve been treated to obsessive coverage of Christine O’Donnell’s opinions on masturbation, and whether she had premarital sex, because we all know that these are the Very Important Issues facing our country.

Every Tea Party candidate has been variously described as crazy, stupid, and on track to destroy America, if elected. Funny, that’s pretty much what was said about Barry Goldwater and his followers by the establishment. And yet, that didn’t stop him from reshaping the Republican Party and laying the groundwork for the Reagan Revolution.

Today, Barry Goldwater is romanticized as an undiplomatic but principled conservative with an adorable penchant for “shooting from the lip.” He retired after decades in the Senate as a revered elder statesman. Even Hillary Clinton once referred to herself as a “Goldwater girl.”

But in his heyday, Goldwater was decried by Democrats and liberal Republicans alike as a dangerous demagogue, who would lead the U.S. into nuclear war, eliminate Social Security, and roll back civil-rights progress. He once advocated giving battlefield commanders in Vietnam the authority to use nuclear weapons.

Demands were made that he disavow his “racist” and “extremist” followers.

Sound familiar?

Goldwater didn’t repudiate his followers but instead thundered in his presidential nomination acceptance speech that “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice” and “moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

Today’s GOP is torn about the Tea Party, with the recent win of Christine O’Donnell in Delaware setting off recriminations and denunciations from the likes of Karl Rove and other Republican Party pooh-bahs. The conflict was inevitable; movements can be messy.

In Kate Zernike’s new book, Boiling Mad: Inside Tea Party America, The New York Times reporter debunks the myth that the Tea Party is “Astroturf,” and a creation of Republican strategists. In fact, she describes it as a legitimate grassroots uprising.

Whatever you make of them, Zernike’s reporting makes clear that the Tea Partiers care deeply about the future of their country. They aren’t intimidated by difficult odds. Many of them had their first experience in political organizing when they put together their maiden Tea Party rally. They detest the Republican Party almost as much as the Democratic Party.

And the more they are mocked, the more determined they are to push forward. The derision of elites, to them, is a badge of honor.

Like Goldwater, Tea Party candidates sometimes say wacky things. Goldwater once told reporters that "sometimes I think this country would be better off if we could just saw off the Eastern Seaboard and let it float out to sea." He was known to quip, "I haven't really got a first-class brain." During the 1964 campaign, Goldwater aides even went so far to ask reporters to "write what he means, not what he says."

But no matter what they say, and no matter how horrified the elites are by their positions, the Tea Party members aren’t remotely out of the Republican mainstream. A poll by The Economist on Wednesday showed that more than 70 percent of Republicans agree with the Tea Party agenda.

Still, pundits and pols are now predicting that the Tea Party has chosen candidates that are too far to the right for a win; that the Republican Party is doomed for being too extreme. The headline in the September 14 Washington Post announced: “Tea Party wins in Northeastern primaries could bode well for Democrats.”

But even if the Tea Party fails in the near-term—which is still not a forgone conclusion—so did the Goldwater movement, which was considered a spectacular failure after the catastrophic 1964 presidential election. Predictions were made that the Republican Party would not recover. Yet Richard Nixon, who had campaigned for Goldwater in ’64, took the White House just four years later.

Barry Goldwater, Jr. told NewsMax on Wednesday that establishment Republicans who are bitter over the stunning success of Tea Party conservatives this primary season "ought to keep their mouth shut and just take a look at what's going on in this country" and that Christine O’Donnell’s win was “no surprise.”

For those who were surprised, it is time to take a closer look.

And remember the lessons of history.


The Tea Party ain’t no joke.


Kirsten Powers is a political analyst on Fox News and a writer for the New York Post. She served in the Clinton Administration from 1993-1998 and has worked in New York state and city politics. Her writing has been published in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the New York Observer, Salon.com, Elle magazine and American Prospect online.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8)Why Democrats Can't Win on Taxes Many Democrats up for re-election do not want to vote for any tax increases, but Obama has drawn a line in the sand against tax cuts "for the rich."
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

To listen to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrats are fired up for a tax debate. Republicans are holding "hostage" the "middle class" with their insistence that the Bush tax cuts be extended for all. Democratic leaders claim they can't wait to bring this line to voters this fall.

There comes a point in Washington debates when the losing side has little left but bluff, and here's a good example. What Democrats know, but won't say, is that the party has walked itself into a lose-lose-lose tax fight. Their choices now range from bad to worse to problematic.

They are in this fix because the tax debate they are having is not the tax debate they had planned. By now, the $800 billion "stimulus" was supposed to have the economy roaring back and unemployment well below 8%. The administration was supposed to be resting on its legislative laurels, the public showing growing appreciation for its agenda. The economy and polls firmly in hand, President Obama would then pivot to the deficit to argue that it was now responsible for a once-again-prosperous nation to pay its bills by letting some tax cuts expire.

The majority stuck to this vision despite all evidence it was imploding. At any point Democrats could have pre-emptively embraced the tax question, perhaps intelligently enough to help the economy, and take credit. They didn't. Tax hikes looming, they must now confront this debate on the back of 9.6% employment, a teetering economy, an unpopular agenda, an angry business community, and an emboldened GOP. Which brings us back to options.

Option No. 1 is for congressional leaders to plunge once again into the legislative breach, this time to threaten and bribe their caucus into passing the Obama plan, which extends tax cuts only for those making less than $250,000. This is a heavy lift, partly because it is hard to find a Democrat who likes the Obama plan.

Mrs. Pelosi's liberals are unenthusiastic, since most would prefer to let all the tax cuts expire. Mrs. Pelosi's Blue Dogs are petrified, since a vote to retain only some cuts will be turned by the GOP into ads explaining that what Democrats in fact voted for was a $700 billion tax increase on small businesses and capital at a time of economic difficulty.

For the 75-plus House Democrats whose seats are in danger, having to defend that vote, in addition to health care, stimulus or cap and trade, would be ghastly. As the election approaches and Democrats find themselves with more seats to defend with limited cash, party moneymen also worry such a vote would alienate businesses and further dry up campaign donations. There's also the small problem of the Senate, where Minority Leader Mitch McConnell wields a potential filibuster.

Option No. 2 is to do nothing and kick the issue beyond the election. This approach allows the leadership to avoid the headaches of Option 1, and it may explain why neither Mr. Reid nor Mrs. Pelosi has bothered to introduce a bill.

This option is, however, not so popular among many rank-and-file Democrats. Perhaps the only thing worse than being accused of voting for $700 billion in tax increases is being accused of doing nothing and allowing $4 trillion in tax increases, most of them on average Americans. Democrats will blame Republicans, but that will be hard to do if Democrats don't even go through the vote motions.

Option No. 3 is for the congressional leadership to give in to the growing pressure and allow members to vote with Republicans to extend all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. That pressure is already notable: No fewer than 31 House Democrats signed a letter this week demanding that all the cuts continue, and five Senate Democrats now support that position. Democratic leaders are clearly worried those numbers will grow, one reason Mrs. Pelosi yesterday refused to rule out a full extension.

This option would not only help vulnerable Democrats, it'd be great for the economy and taxpayers. The political problem Democrats have is self-created. Rather than embrace the winner of full tax relief, President Obama has chosen to draw an ideological line and to motivate his liberal base with his position against tax cuts "for the rich." Democrats are now fearful that if they cave it will demoralize that base, and further handicap them in midterm races.

And so, the bluff. It's a weak hand, but the GOP shouldn't underestimate it. The Democrats' best shot is procedural, to somehow allow only one vote—on extending rates for just the "middle class"—and dare Republicans to vote against it. Democrats might then peel off GOP support and provide themselves cover this fall. If the majority senses fear—like what emanated from Minority Leader John Boehner this past weekend when he suggested he wouldn't take that dare—it'll take this shot.

Republicans should call and raise. If Mr. Obama has such a winner tax position, it isn't clear why his leaders are ducking tax bills and his members are running for cover. And if the GOP can't run on universal tax relief in this of all years, it's not clear when it ever can.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------