On this forthcoming Memorial Day, it might be useful to reflect upon who we are as a people, what we once had in terms of a nation conceived by some bright men, what we have lost relative to what they wanted for us, what we still have, those who fought and died to give us the opportunity to live in a land such as ours, what we intend to do about preserving what we have and what sacrifices we must make to improve our land for our children, grand and great grand children and those yet to come.I write these memos because I feel an obligation to get things I care about off my chest in the distant hope it might cause those who disagree to rethink their own positions and I always invite responses.
---
The government has received huge sums of money through taxation and yet, we are some 50 billion in debt - 14 of which is on the books and the other 36 billion is off balance sheet obligations, ie. Social Security etc..
So please explain to me, if you can, the logic of how raising more revenue through increased taxes will solve our nation's fiscal mess?
We taxed ourselves into this situation so now Democrats propose we should tax ourselves out of it?
Any fool dumb enough to believe this must live in New York and voted for the new Democrat Rep. for Congress (The Democrat won a special Congressional race in a Republican district in upstate New York? Apparently, she campaigned a lot to protect Medicare.)
Since everyone receives some direct or indirect benefit (including direct cash payments) from government it is difficult for the phrase(s) reduce government spending and/or cut government spending to gain traction.
When most families incur debts because of unbridled spending and the breadwinner(s) cannot work any harder to bring in more income the family cuts spending or declares bankruptcy.
In government, politicians get re-elected by spending tax receipts of others on their own constituents so they can get re-elected.
Since politicians cannot even think about this during an election year that means the window for cutting spending is a narrow one because politicians are always raising money for the next election. My dear friends Sens. Sam Nunn and the late Paul Coverdell found raising money the most distasteful part of their work. Sam never had opposition but he still had to raise money to keep competition at bay and Paul was engaged in raising money for his re-election the day after he began his first term.
We have the best Congress money can buy and we have the biggest crippling debt that our children and their children will be burdened with as we continue to spend that which we can never repay.
This is insane and every time voters elect yahoos who scare them into voting for them on false premises we simply sink further into debt. This is the story of the recent New York election. Outrageous ads, showing a grandmother in a wheel chair being pushed off a cliff, elected this new Democrat Congresswomen because she ran on a pledge to fund 'Obamascare' and her Republican opponent failed to explain the utter inanity of the matter as a third candidate siphoned away votes.
Our education system is in shambles and we are reaping the consequences because voters seem incapable of seeing through the haze of political 'bs.' They lack reasoning powers and an unwillingness to sacrifice seems beyond their comprehension.
Rep. Ryan's program may not offer the best solution but rather than attack it with lies and distortions Ryan's presentation should be thoughtfully examined and debated. However, doing that would make Democrats have to explain and defend a 2000 plus page document they have not read, are not personally subjected to and which their fearless leaders dumped on the nation in a mad dash to intrude government further into our lives under the false premise if would reduce deficits and provide better health care for more people. How many Brooklyn Bridges must one buy?
Then, Newt Gingrich comes along, trashes Ryan's proposal even further because he is interested in getting elected himself. Apparently what Newt said fell like a lead balloon but it provided ammunition and is being used by Democrats to perpetuate their own irresponsible conduct.
If I have overstated what is going on please let me hear from you.
---
A comprehensive list explains why we should not believe this president who lies unabashedly. (See 1 below.)
---
Obama has no energy policy because he must pacify the 'Greens' in his party and fund his Arab/Muslim friends. So we keep pouring our money on their sea of imported oil. (See 2 below.)
---
Egypt has been, and will increasingly come, under the sway of The Muslim Brotherhood. To show our recognition of this fact Obama excused 2 billion of debt and extended another billion of U.S. largess to Egypt in the mistaken belief it will buy Egyptian friendship and an Egyptian economic recovery. (See 3 below.)
Meanwhile, Obama has spent trillions bailing out our own economy which remains tepid at best. (See 3a, 3b and 3c below.)
However, according to Steve Sjuggerud, no recession in the foreseeable. (See 3d below)
---
Krauthammer reports on how our lying president keeps on lying as if he was that battery bunny. This time it is to the Israelis.
The man is incapable of shame and, as I have said so often, I believe it is pathological and deep rooted in his Muslim background and antipathy towards historical Colonialism. (See 4 and 4a below.)
---
James Delingpole, very humorist writer, does a job on O'Bama's trip to Ireland that the White House would love to 'scotch.' (See 5 below.)
---
Bibi versus Obama - who has won?
However, sometimes the winner lives to regret his victories because the loser has no intention of losing.(See 6 below.)
---
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) The Obama Disconnect
By Richard Butrick
Whatever else is said of our President, he does not let his principles of governance interfere with the implementation of his policies. Let's not even bother with the principle that terror suspects must not be tried in military courts or the principle that there be no rendition of terror suspects. And Gitmo? That hardly rises to the level of a principle. These are some major pronouncements that Obama made regarding his administration's governance.
1. The principle of Transparency
My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.
The reality of transparency
Kim Strassel, in a Wall Street Journal article, writes
Among Barack Obama's first actions as president was signing a memo pledging his administration to "an unprecedented level of openness in government." But according to a House hearing and outside watchdog groups, those promises have so far been a giant bust.
Televising healthcare negotiations on C-SPAN?
Making White House contacts with lobbyists more open?
No secret meetings with lobbyists at a nearby coffee shop to avoid official records of meetings?
And now the call for transparency in the ObamaCare waiver process by Orin Hatch (Finance Committee) and David Camp (Ways and Means).
2. The principle that lobbyist influence in the legislative processes of government must be kept to a minimum
Barack Obama, November 3, 2007:
One year from now, we have the chance to tell all those corporate lobbyists that the days of them setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race - and I've won. I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am President, they won't find a job in my White House.
The reality of lobbyist influence
Although Barack Obama promised lobbyists would not serve in his White House, and issued executive orders restricting former lobbyists, more than 40 ex-lobbyists now populate top jobs in the Obama administration, including three Cabinet secretaries, the Director of Central Intelligence, and many senior White House officials.
Here is the working list of ex-lobbyists in the Obama administration.
3. The principle that signing statements should only be used to clarify implementation of congressional legislation
While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability,
The reality is that signing statements were used to redact congressional legislation. (Glenn Greenwald, Salon)
He punctuated his answer as follows: "we're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress." It just doesn't get any clearer than that.
But on Friday, Obama did exactly that which he vowed in that answer he would never do. When signing the budget bill into law, he attached a signing statement objecting to some provisions as an encroachment on executive power but still vowing to obey them (such as restrictions on transferring Guantanamo detainees), but then explicitly stated that he would ignore the provision of this new law that de-funds his so-called "czars" (which are really little more than glorified presidential advisers). Declaring that the Executive has the unfettered "authority to supervise and oversee the executive branch" -- i.e., asserting another critical aspect of the "unitary theory of the Executive" -- Obama declared that "the executive branch will construe [the de-funding provision] not to abrogate these Presidential prerogatives." In other words, we're going to ignore that mandate because we believe it's unconstitutional: he's going to use funds for exactly the purpose that Congress, in a bill he signed into law, flatly prohibited.
4. The principle that the president does not have the authority to unilaterally order military action except in the case of a national emergency
In a 2007 interview with The Boston Globe, then Senator Obama declared:
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
The reality is that the president has unilaterally (without consent of congress) ordered military action justified as humanitarian intervention
However, as president in March 2011, Barack Obama authorized military action against the Libyan regime without consulting Congress, a decision which drew heavy fire on Capitol Hill.
4. The principle that national sovereignty must not be subverted
In July 2009 the president made a striking defense of the principle of national sovereignty in a speech he gave at the New Economic School in Moscow. President Obama spoke in eloquent terms of:
America's interest in an international system that advances cooperation while respecting the sovereignty of all nations. State sovereignty must be a cornerstone of international order. Just as all states should have the right to choose their leaders, states must have the right to borders that are secure, and to their own foreign policies. That is true for Russia, just as it is true for the United States. Any system that cedes those rights will lead to anarchy.
The reality is that the president has subsumed national sovereignty under the aegis of UN and the ideal of world government.
Herbert London of the Hudson Institute spells out the Obama Doctrine which weakens national sovereignty.
As I see it, the Obama Doctrine has four central themes each in its way related to diminished national sovereignty.
The first is a reliance on multilateral organizations such as the United Nations. Elevating the U.N. ambassador's role to a cabinet position was a tell-tale sign.
Most significantly, channeling U.S. goals through the Security Council, notwithstanding the veto of any one nation, has been a central focus of this administration. This is the case in the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, as well as the attempt to prevent the nuclear ambition of Iran.
Second the Human Rights Commission. Despite the fact the commission is populated by the most egregious abusers of human rights, the Obama administration reversed the decision of previous presidents and joined this organization, claiming it was in the national interest to monitor cases the commission is considering.
Third, the Obama team believes it must apologize for America's previous foreign policy decisions. From Berlin to Cairo, President Obama has made it clear a new dawn is rising in which the mistakes of the past will be redressed.
Instead of an unequivocal defense of the national interest, the administration offers mea culpas. The assertion of American power and its stabilizing influence has been subordinated to multilateral understanding and the appeasement of self declared enemies.
Fourth, the government's suit against Arizona legislation which calls for the enforcement of the law against illegal aliens is a demonstration of the belief that borders do not matter and sovereignty is in the eye of the beholder.
If a state is unable to secure its border against illegal entrants because of a federal lawsuit, the message is unalloyed: this administration will not support state efforts to defend its borders.
The impetus for these positions is the belief that globalization, i.e., a reliance on multilateral arrangements, will provide greater security for the U.S. than the unilateral assertion of American will. That there isn't a shred of evidence to support the theory is irrelevant since true believers on the Obama team are pursuing this agenda relentlessly.
5. The principle that it against the precepts of our National identity to disrespect and burn the holy texts of any religion.
With respect to the individual down in Florida, let me just say - well, let me repeat what I said a couple of days ago: The idea that we would burn the sacred texts of someone else's religion is contrary to what this country stands for. It's contrary to what this country - this nation was founded on.
The reality is that translations of the Holy Bible were burned in Afghanistan under military order and the Commander in Chief of the military is President Obama..
Military personnel confiscated, threw away, and ultimately burned, Bibles that were printed in the two most common Afghan languages amid concern they would be used to try to convert Afghans, a Defense Department spokesman said Tuesday.
The unsolicited Bibles sent by a church in the United States were confiscated about a year ago at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan because military rules forbid troops of any religion from proselytizing while deployed there.
Let us just say that our Commander in Chief never lets his principles interfere with his M.O. It's just the Chicago way. Or is it? Elevating Islam? Subsuming National Sovereignty? His unspoken principles appear inviolate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) The Administration's No New Energy Policy
By Elizabeth Ames Jones
The Memorial Day weekend traditionally marks the beginning of the summer driving season but this year Americans are looking at the prices at the pump and reconsidering the cost of a vacation via the great American highway. Four dollar a gallon gasoline has folks tightening their belts rather than loosening their collars and relaxing for a week or two this summer. There are numerous forces affecting the price of gas, including monetary policy and the war on terror premium, but the principal economic force driving these prices is future supply concerns and growing demand around the globe.
Even before the BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, in April of last year, the Obama administration embarked on a policy to reduce domestic oil production. In point of fact, President Obama signed an executive order banning drilling in Bristol Bay, Alaska, fully one month before the BP disaster. Additionally, in the wake of the poorly handled BP disaster, the President signed a drilling ban in the Gulf to "assess" the safety of deep water drilling. Subsequently, that ban was lifted but the number of permits issued since the ban ended is less than a dozen due to the bureaucratic backlog, which is moving at less than half fast speed.
The loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs along the Gulf Coast is not the only result of this "permitorium." The shut down of the offshore drilling industry means that future domestic oil production will fall at a time when global demand (from China and India) is rising. The exciting advancements of technology, like the application of horizontal drilling and multi-stage hydraulic fracturing technology, to unleash our onshore American natural gas and crude oil simply can't overcome a plan that cripples the fundamentals required by companies to put deals together to explore, drill, find, and produce oil and natural gas, too. When that happens, you get less of the supply to go around. It is a tried and true economic theorem that if you reduce the supply of a commodity, higher prices are the result. Once again, the American family pays the price.
Currently, 56% of the U.S. trade deficit is the result of oil imports. Two hundred billion dollars of American wealth is transferred overseas every year to countries that don't like us very much. If current Obama Administration policies don't change soon these numbers will only get bigger. Regardless of these numbers the Obama Administration only wants to hear about green energy.
Some activists have always dreamed of the day when the world is powered by green energy. The problem with this fantasy is that the technical challenges involved make this an impossible dream. If you include hydroelectric power, the total output of green energy is less than 3% of the total energy produced in the U.S. Wind power needs natural gas as a back up to be practical; and solar, while it sounds good, is only 20% efficient for the very best panels. The higher cost of these solar panels results in a cost per kilowatt-hour of more than twice the current value of a natural gas fired power plant. Energy security is only an empty pipe dream if you are banking on sources other than oil and natural gas to do the heavy lifting to fuel America for decades to come. Simply put, there is nothing coming down the pipe that can turn green energy into reality, unless one wants the American people to make sacrifices.
Speaking of pipelines, for more than three years the U.S. State Department has tied up the building of an oil pipeline from Canada with bureaucratic lethargy. This pipeline would bring oil to the U.S. from a dependable ally that has not had any political turmoil for more than two hundred years. Instead the administration would rather send $2 billion to Brazil to assist them with their off shore drilling projects.
Recently, the President has been speaking out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to production of our energy resources. The message given is "let's drill" while regulatory hurdles are placed in front of the drilling. From where or whom is this mentality derived? Is it ignorance or arrogance? The Administration doesn't have the slightest understanding of oil and gas law, contracts, and the role of geology in the process. They don't understand how deals are done, and it is hurting America.
The reality is that there is plenty of domestic hydrocarbon energy to be produced if only the government would get out of the way and let us go and get it. According to the government's own estimates of the technically recoverable undiscovered petroleum resources of the Gulf of Mexico and offshore Alaska totals 68 billion barrels of oil and 342 trillion cubic feet of gas, or a combined total of 128 billion barrels of oil equivalent. This does not even include the large potential reserves of the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR). Simply put, 128 billion barrels of potential oil is what the Obama administration is restraining the United States from developing. Failing to aggressively open up these resources for leasing, by moratorium or "permitorium," the failure and delay in granting permits to drill is a total fiasco of government. Only a radical environmental ideologue could appreciate the logic of this policy that throws the energy security of our nation under the bus.
The demand for oil is not going away just because some bureaucrats have the ill-conceived or ill-informed idea that all our energy needs can be met by green energy. The Energy Information Agency (EIA) places our daily petroleum consumption at almost 21 million barrels a day. By 2030, the EIA projects that the consumption will grow to 23 million barrels a day. If we were the only country using oil this would not be a problem but we aren't.
Global demand for oil is growing as a result of the modernization efforts underway in India and China. China is now Saudi Arabia's biggest customer. In fact China is laying down 600 miles of four-lane concrete highway every year and to populate that highway they are producing 14,000 new cars every day. The Department of Defense (DoD) began studying the growth of these emerging economies and late last year published it's bi-annual report called the Joint Operating Environment (JOE). In that report it states the following:
A severe energy crunch is inevitable without a massive expansion of production and refining capacity. Energy production and distribution infrastructure must see significant new investment if energy demand is to be satisfied at a cost compatible with economic growth and prosperity.
Apparently no one in the Obama White House read that report. The fact of the matter is that we need to be encouraging the oil and natural gas industry to find new sources of domestic energy; it should be a national imperative. Other countries are getting into the energy producing game, thanks to shale oil and shale natural gas. We will eat their dust if we fail to provide the energy our economy needs. We can say adios to energy and economic security and global competitiveness for generations to come.
Chairman Elizabeth Ames Jones, 54, was overwhelmingly elected statewide in 2006 to serve a six-year term on Texas's energy oversight agency, the Railroad Commission of Texas after serving two terms in the Texas Legislature.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)The Arab Upheaval: Egypt's Islamist Shadow
By Cynthia Farahat
Middle East Quarterly - Summer 2011
Will the Muslim Brotherhood seize power in Egypt? This often repeated question, or rather fear, assumes that the Islamist organization does not already wield power yet may be able to hijack the largely secular revolution owing to its superior organization, tight discipline, and ideological single mindedness.[1]
In fact, this situation already exists. For while the Muslim Brotherhood does not formally or organizationally rule Egypt, it has ideologically controlled the country for nearly sixty years since the overthrow of the monarchy by the July 1952 coup d'état (euphemized as the "July Revolution"). The real question, then, is not whether the Muslim Brotherhood will seize power but whether it will continue to hold it, either directly or by proxy.
The Free Officers' Islamist-Fascist Streak
Since it is exceptionally difficult to define ideological differences and allegiances in Egypt's Islamic politics, a simple rule of thumb will suffice: Politicians or institutions bent on implementing the Shari'a (Islamic law), or some elements of it, qualify as Islamists; Egypt's ruling military oligarchy clearly falls into this category.
Not only does the Egyptian constitution make the Shari'a "the principal source of legislation," but the Free Officers, as the perpetrators of the 1952 putsch called themselves, were closely associated with both the Muslim Brotherhood's military wing and the Young Egypt Society (Misr al-Fatat), a nationalist-fascist militia established in 1929 by Ahmad Hussein, a religiously educated lawyer. Both Egyptian presidents hailing from the Free Officers—Gamal Abdel Nasser (1956-70) and Anwar Sadat (1970-81)—received their early political schooling in al-Fatat, which in 1940 transformed into the National Islamic Party.[2]
The group spread its xenophobic and militant ideas through its magazine, Scream (al-Sarkh'a),which combined vicious attacks on Western democracy with praise for Fascism and Nazism and advocacy of the implementation of Shari'a rule. In a famous letter, Hussein invited Hitler "to convert to Islam."[3] This outlook was shared by the Muslim Brotherhood's publication, al-Nazir, which referred to the Nazi tyrant as "Hajj Hitler," and by the society's founding father, Hasan al-Banna—an unabashed admirer of Hitler and Mussolini who "guided their peoples to unity, order, regeneration, power, and glory."[4] (As late as 1953, Anwar Sadat, whose staunch pro-Nazi sympathies landed him in prison during World War II, wrote an "open letter" to Hitler in a leading Egyptian newspaper, in which he applauded the tyrant and pronounced him the real victor of the war.) [5]
Misr al-Fatat's attempted assassination in 1937 of Egypt's democratically elected liberal prime minister, Mustafa Nahhas, got the organization banned, and in the 1940s, the officers took their radicalism a step further by collaborating with the Muslim Brotherhood's military wing. Some of them even joined the latter organization, notably Nasser, who reportedly did so in 1944. In his memoirs, Khaled Mohieddin, a fellow Free Officer, claimed that Banna had personally asked Nasser to join the Brotherhood, recounting how he and Nasser swore allegiance on a gun and a Qur'an.[6]
This background has continuing relevance because it informs the Free Officers' DNA: The leaders of Egypt since 1952 have pursued means and goals that originated in the Muslim Brotherhood. Moreover, Misr al-Fatat's Islamic-socialist and fascistic ideas are very much alive and well, and in 1990, the party was re-founded and granted a license to work as a legal entity by Mubarak's regime.
From Nasser to Mubarak
Following Banna's murder on February 12, 1949, by government agents in retaliation for the assassination of Prime Minister Nuqrashi Pasha a few weeks earlier, the military and civilian wings of the Muslim Brotherhood split. Nasser proceeded to form the Free Officers movement, which mounted the 1952 coup. In the coming decades, the military regime and the Brotherhood would maintain a strenuous relationship interrupted by occasional outbursts of violence and terrorism—notably a 1954 attempt by the Brotherhood on Nasser's life—and repressive countermeasures by the regime including mass arrests and sporadic executions. But this should be understood not as a struggle between an autocratic, secular dictatorship and a would-be Islamist one but a struggle between two ideologically similar, if not identical, rival groups, hailing from the same source.
In these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that in the past, some elements within the younger generations in the military would collaborate with Islamists groups or devise their own jihadist plots, notably Sadat's October 1981 assassination by Lt. Khaled Islambouli. A military court sentenced Islambouli to death in 1982, but speculations that the death sentence was never carried out continue to circulate, especially after Sadat's daughter Roukaya made that claim on Egyptian television on March 17, 2011, saying that she saw him with her own eyes at a Saudi hotel in 1996 and that the murderer panicked upon seeing her. Roukaya recently filed a complaint with the attorney general in which she accused Mubarak of complicity in Sadat's assassination and asked for the reopening of the investigation into her father's murder.[7] Some other members of Sadat's family have similarly implied that the military was involved in his assassination. One such accusation, by Talaat Sadat, Anwar's nephew and a former member of parliament, led to his incarceration for a year in military prison in 2006 for defaming the military.[8]
Such accusations must have been particularly galling to Mubarak, who was groomed by Sadat as his successor. Mubarak also narrowly escaped an Islamist attempt on his own life while on an official visit to Ethiopia in June 1995, and portrayed himself to the West as a relentless fighter of Islamist radicalism.
To be sure, the Ethiopia incident set in motion a repressive campaign that saw the incarceration of thousands of Islamists and the execution of some. Yet this was aimed at the more militant Salafi groups, such as al-Takfir wa-l-Hijra (Excommunication and Hijra), al-Gama'at al-Islamiya (the Muslim Associations), and Tanzim al-Jihad (Organization of the Jihad), rather than the Muslim Brotherhood, which had transformed during the Sadat years into a parliamentary opposition party.
If Mubarak did indeed ban, threaten, and terrorize some Egyptians, it was the secularists rather than the Brotherhood. As cofounder of a secular political party, the Liberal Egyptian Party, whose political program calls for secularism, human rights, capitalism, the rule of law, and rejection of pan-Arabism and Islamic imperialism, this author saw it rebuffed as a legal entity by court order for being opposed to Shari'a law, which indeed it was. By contrast, not only did Mubarak allow eighty-eight Muslim Brotherhood members into parliament in 2005—as a useful tool for scaring the Western governments into thinking that democracy in Egypt would inevitably bring the Islamists to power—but his regime subtly colluded with Islamists against their more democratically inclined compatriots and religious minorities, notably the Copts.[9]
Current Realties
This background explains why the Muslim Brotherhood initially declared its opposition to the street protests in January 2011, refused to demonstrate against the regime, and issued a formal statement almost a week prior to the mass protests in which it stated that the organization "will not take part in the street protests against Mubarak's regime as a political force or a political entity."[10] Only on realizing the inevitability of Mubarak's fall did it change tack and joined the protest in strength.
Likewise, a statement by the leader of al-Gamaat al-Islamiya, Nageh Ibrahim, urged all members of Islamist groups to shun street protests as these were against the Islamic da'wa (call to join Islam)[11] whereas another group, The Salafi Da'wa in Egypt, rejected the protests as opposed to the interests of Salafis.[12]
For its part, the Egyptian Supreme Council of the Armed Forces has taken several actions after Mubarak's resignation that ensure continuity with past conduct of the regime. These include:
•Freeing Col. Aboud al-Zomor, the mastermind behind the Sadat assassination, from prison[13] while arresting a secular classic liberal Egyptian blogger. Maikel Nabil Sanad was arrested on March 28, 2011, and faced trial in a military court for criticizing the ruling military council and the Egyptian army in his latest article. After announcing that they would issue a ruling on April 12, the military authorities almost secretly sentenced him to three years in military prison for practicing his basic right to free speech on April 10, two days before the date they announced in court to his lawyers.
•Issued a constitutional declaration on March 30, 2011 and changed articles that were not voted on or mentioned in the referendum while adding the second article in the constitution - making the Shari'a "the principal source of legislation" - to the declaration, so as to combat free speech, suppress secular dissent, and persecute non-Muslims and women.
•Consulting with Sheikh Muhammad Hassan before issuing a statement on the rebuilding of a church near Cairo, destroyed by a Muslim mob on March 5, 2011. Hassan is a jihadist known for his radicalism and online incitement of suicide bombings as well as for his support of the Mubarak regime and opposition to the street protests. Hassan and the military have agreed to rebuild the church in accordance with the Shari'a concept of diyah, in which a Muslim is not punished for vandalizing the property of an infidel but can pay a financial compensation.[14]
•Not arresting or persecuting any of the Muslims responsible for hate crimes against Christians. In March 2011, for example, a group of Salafi thugs attacked and brutally tortured a Christian man, cutting off his ears, for renting one of his apartments to a single Muslim woman. This suggests that the military plans to continue governing Egypt in accordance to Shari'a law and practice whereby Muslims are not punished for committing any crime against a non-Muslim.[15]
•Appointing Tareq al-Bishri, a retired judge, to head a committee for constitutional reform. Bishri has expressed approval of and fondness for the Brotherhood, saying that he personally appreciated the organization; he is also known for radicalism expressed in his book The Secular-Islamic Dialogue in which he stated that a secular-Islamic dialogue was completely pointless.[16]
Fighting the 2011 Egyptian Revolution
All this means that, at the governmental level, the Egyptian revolution has thus far failed for the Mubarak regime, albeit without the person himself, remains very much in place. The constitutional changes approved by the March 19 referendum, aimed at paving the way for parliamentary and presidential elections in the early summer, are not conducive to real democratic reform but pander to those groups opposed to democracy. The changes put the nascent secularist and liberal parties in marked disadvantage vis-à-vis their well organized Islamist counterparts, on the one hand, and the ruling establishment, on the other.
The majority of the fourteen million voters who approved the changes (or 77.2 percent of the total vote) came from the government's six million employees and their families—a massive voting bloc rejecting the revolution and opposed to real change, which sought to preserve the status quo from which it has profited. But the fact that the Islamists cast their vote the same way provides further proof of the communality of goals and interests of the two camps and their eagerness to secure the status quo as the next parliament will write the new Egyptian constitution in the absence of classic liberals and secularists and leave the real reformers out in the cold.
Then there is the Saudi government, whose relations with the Brotherhood date back to the 1930s, which views the protests as a potential threat—not only to its influence in Egypt, currently a major breeding ground of Salafism, but also to the future stability of the Saudi monarchy itself. Small wonder, therefore, that Riyadh rejected Cairo's possible drift toward democracy and criticized Washington's cold shouldering of Mubarak. It also had a leading mufti issue a fatwa (religious edict) against the protest movement, calling this nonviolent dissent "an act of war on Islam, and the collective Islamic nation."[17] It even threatened to cut all diplomatic ties with Cairo, should Mubarak be prosecuted.
Undoing the Totalitarian Mentality
Islamists have long controlled the educational system and mass media in Egypt. As a child in a private Cairo school, I was personally taught intolerance and militancy through my Arabic language textbooks. We were taught, for instance, that hacking necks and limbs was good if done for the "right reasons" and urged to follow the example of Uqba ibn Nafi (622–83), a militant, Arab Muslim hero known for his cruelty, from an Arabic school textbook that carried his name. Later, when I joined other secular Egyptians in publishing a newspaper, al-Insan (The human), the Mubarak government denied us permission—even as it allowed Salafi jihadists daily access to television and other state-sponsored media.
The Egyptian government was not unusual in this regard: Regimes in Arab countries have been united by common crimes, not by common interests or goals. The dismantling of the collective, totalitarian psyche threatens the so-called "moderate Arab regimes," those that justify their existence by systematically inflating the Islamist threat, which they pretend to suppress, while effectively collaborating with Islamists.
Now suddenly, the long subdued, subject populations are uniting to overthrow these regimes—not in the name of Shari'a or pan-Arabism but under the banner of freedom and prosperity. The Tunisian revolution was the first step in dismantling the old repressive, regional order; the Egyptian revolution was the second.
Even if the near future belongs to the enemies of freedom, something profound has changed among Egyptians; none of them will be the same again. Freedom may look like a distant dream, but it is still closer than ever imagined prior to 2011.
Tahrir Square has proven even to sworn skeptics that countries are not inherently Salafist, xenophobic, fascist, suicidal, and intolerant; it takes a ruthless and well organized system of governance to shape them this way; and yet this system never succeeds in killing the natural human yearning for liberty. That is why the Salafi, jihadist line of thought did not exist in Tahrir Square. Disowning Mubarak brought out the best of Egyptians. As Senator John McCain (Republican-Arizona) aptly noted: "This revolution is a repudiation of al-Qaeda."[18]
Cynthia Farahat is an Egyptian political activist and writer.
[1] See, for example, The Washington Times, Mar. 27, 2011.
[2] Anwar Sadat, Asrar at-Thawra al-Misriya (Cairo: Dar al-Hilal, 1957), pp. 44-53, 60-7, 90-2; P. J. Vatikiotis, Nasser and His Generation (London: Croom Helm, 1978), pp. 54, 60, 73.
[3] Al-Masry al-Youm (Cairo), Oct. 8, 2009.
[4] Robert St. John, The Boss: The Story of Gamal Abdel Nasser (New York: McGraw Hill, 1960), pp. 41-2.
[5] Open letter from Anwar Sadat to Adolf Hitler, al-Musawwar (Cairo), Sept. 18, 1953.
[6] Khaled Mohieddin, Memories of a Revolution (Cairo: American University of Cairo Press, 1995), p. 45.
[7] Al-Youm al-Sabe'a (Cairo), Mar. 18, 2011; Misr News (Cairo), Mar. 21, 2011.
[8] The New York Times, Nov. 1, 2006.
[9] Daniel Pipes, "Copts Pay the Price," DanielPipes.org, Jan. 12, 2011.
[10] Al-Dustur (Cairo), Jan. 19, 2011.
[11]Al-Ahram (Cairo), Jan. 24, 2011.
[12] Mawqi as-Salafi, accessed Mar. 30, 2011.
[13] Ahram Online (Cairo), Mar. 11, 2011.
[14] Assyrian International News Agency, Mar. 16, 2011; YouTube, Feb. 26, 2003, Jan. 16, 2009.
[15] Akhbar Misr (Cairo), Mar. 26, 2011.
[16] Al-Jazeera TV (Doha), Feb. 15, 2011; al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun, Feb. 15, 2011.
[17] Nabanews (Sanaa), Feb. 5, 2011; goodnews4me (Cairo), Mar. 17, 2011.
[18] Agence France-Presse, Feb. 27, 2011.
3a)Economic Scene
The Economy Is Wavering. Does Washington Notice?
By DAVID LEONHARDT
The latest economic numbers have not been good. Jobless claims rose last week, the Labor Department said on Thursday. Another report showed that economic growth at the start of the year was no faster than the Commerce Department initially reported — “a real surprise,” said Ian Shepherdson of High Frequency Economics.
Perhaps the most worrisome number was the one Macroeconomic Advisers released on Wednesday. That firm tries to estimate the growth rate of the current quarter in real time, and it now says annualized second-quarter growth is running at only 2.8 percent, up from 1.8 percent in the first quarter. Not so long ago, the firm’s economists thought second-quarter growth would be almost 4 percent.
An economy that is growing this slowly will not add jobs quickly. For the next couple of months, employment growth could slow from about 230,000 recently to something like 150,000 jobs a month, only slightly faster than normal population growth. That is certainly not fast enough to make a big dent in the still huge number of unemployed people.
Are any policy makers paying attention?
When the economy weakened in the first quarter, Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, and Obama administration officials said the slowdown was just a blip and growth would soon pick up. Today, many Wall Street economists are saying much the same thing: any day now, things will improve.
Maybe they will. But the history of financial crises shows that they produce weak, uneven recoveries, with unemployment remaining high for years. That history also shows that aggressive government action — the kind of action Washington took in 2008 and 2009, but not for most of 2010 — can make the situation much better than it otherwise would be.
The latest signs of weakness suggest that policy makers remain too sanguine. It is easy to see how the rest of 2011 could end up disappointing, much as 2010 did.
For one thing, there are specific forces holding back growth. Oil prices, though down in the last few weeks, are still 40 percent higher than a year ago and continue to siphon money away from the American economy to overseas economies. When I filled my gas tank last weekend, it cost $74, more than I think I have ever paid.
The housing market also remains in terrible shape. Europe is still struggling with its debt troubles. State and local governments continue to cut jobs.
These specific problems worsen the broader insecurity of both households and business executives — insecurity that is typical in the wake of a financial crisis. Long after the crisis itself is over, businesses are slow to hire and quick to fire. Thursday’s report on new jobless claims showed that they rose by 10,000, to 424,000, which is not a number associated with a solid recovery.
“Labor market gains may be faltering somewhat,” Joshua Shapiro, chief United States economist at MFR, a New York research firm, wrote to clients after the report’s release.
For households, already coping with miserly wage growth, that is another reason not to spend. The Commerce Department’s updated gross domestic product figures showed that consumer spending grew at an annual inflation-adjusted rate of only 2.2 percent in the first quarter, not the 2.7 percent rate the department initially reported.
The economy does still have some bright spots, and they could grow in coming months, just as policy makers and private forecasters are, once again, predicting. If North Africa and the Middle East do not become more chaotic, oil prices may continue falling. Vehicle production will probably pick up as the parts shortages caused by the Japanese earthquake end. The falling dollar will continue to help American exporters, as well as any domestic businesses that compete with foreign importers.
But there is no doubt that the economy has performed considerably worse in the last few months than most policy makers expected. The situation is now uncomfortably similar to last year’s, when the economy sped up in the first few months only to stall in the spring and summer.
The most sensible response for Washington would be to begin thinking more seriously about taking out an insurance policy on the recovery. The Fed could stop worrying so much about inflation, which remains historically low, and look at how else it might encourage spending. As Mr. Bernanke has said before, the Fed “retains considerable power” to lift growth.
The White House and Congress, meanwhile, could begin talking about extending last year’s temporary extension of business tax credits, household tax cuts and jobless benefits beyond Dec. 31. It would be easy enough to pair such an extension with longer-term deficit reduction.
Any temporary measures will eventually need to lapse, of course. But the current moment remains a textbook time to use them — when the economy is struggling to emerge from the aftermath of a terrible recession. The one thing not to do is to turn to deficit reduction too quickly after a crisis, as Europe is painfully learning.
Almost four years after the mortgage market first began to quiver and unemployment began to rise, Americans are understandably eager for good economic news. But wishing for it doesn’t make it so. You have to wonder whether the people in Washington have learned that lesson yet.
3b)POLITICAL CONNECTIONS
Why the white working class is the most alienated and pessimistic group in American society.
Almost no one noticed, but around George W. Bush’s reelection in 2004, the nation crossed a demographic milestone.
From Revolutionary days through 2004, a majority of Americans fit two criteria. They were white. And they concluded their education before obtaining a four-year college degree. In the American mosaic, that vast white working class was the largest piece, from the yeoman farmer to the welder on the assembly line. Even as late as the 1990 census, whites without a college degree represented more than three-fifths of adults.
But as the country grew more diverse and better educated, the white working-class share of the adult population slipped to just under 50 percent in the Census Bureau’s 2005 American Community Survey. That number has since fallen below 48 percent.
The demographic eclipse of the white working class is likely an irreversible trend as the United States reconfigures itself yet again as a “world nation” reinvigorated by rising education levels and kaleidoscopic diversity. That emerging America will create opportunities (such as the links that our new immigrants will provide to emerging markets around the globe) and face challenges (including improving high school and college graduation rates for the minority young people who will provide tomorrow’s workforce).
Still, amid all of this change, whites without a four-year college degree remain the largest demographic bloc in the workforce. College-educated whites make up about one-fifth of the adult population, while minorities account for a little under one-third. The picture is changing, but whites who have not completed college remain the backbone of many, if not most, communities and workplaces across the country.
They are also, polls consistently tell us, the most pessimistic and alienated group in American society.
The latest measure of this discontent came in a thoughtful national survey on economic opportunity released last week by the Pew Charitable Trusts’ Economic Mobility Project. If numbers could scream, they would probably sound like the poll’s results among working-class whites.
One question asked respondents whether they expected to be better off economically in 10 years than they are today. Two-thirds of blacks and Hispanics said yes, as did 55 percent of college-educated whites; just 44 percent of noncollege whites agreed. Asked if they were better off than their parents were at the same age, about three-fifths of college-educated whites, African-Americans, and Hispanics said they were. But blue-collar whites divided narrowly, with 52 percent saying yes and a head-turning 43 percent saying no. (The survey, conducted from March 24 through 29, surveyed 2,000 adults and has a margin of error of ±3.4 percent.)
What makes these results especially striking is that minorities were as likely as blue-collar whites to report that they have been hurt by the recession. The actual unemployment rate is considerably higher among blacks and Hispanics than among blue-collar whites, much less college-educated whites.
Yet, minorities were more optimistic about the next generation than either group of whites, the survey found. In the most telling result, 63 percent of African-Americans and 54 percent of Hispanics said they expected their children to exceed their standard of living. Even college-educated whites are less optimistic (only about two-fifths agree). But the noncollege whites are the gloomiest: Just one-third of them think their kids will live better than they do; an equal number think their children won’t even match their living standard. No other group is nearly that negative.
This worry is hardly irrational. As Massachusetts Institute of Technology economists Frank Levy and Tom Kochan report in a new paper, the average high-school-educated, middle-aged man earns almost 10 percent less than his counterpart did in 1980. Minorities haven’t been exempt from that trend: In fact, high-school-educated minority men have experienced even slower wage growth than their white counterparts over the past two decades, calculates Larry Mishel, president of the liberal Economic Policy Institute.
But for minorities, that squeeze has been partially offset by the sense that possibilities closed to their parents are becoming available to them as discrimination wanes. “The distinction is, these blue-collar whites see opportunities for people like them shrinking, whereas the African-Americans [and Hispanics] feel there are a set of long-term opportunities that are opening to them that were previously closed on the basis of race or ethnicity,” said Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster who helped conduct the Pew survey.
By contrast, although it is difficult to precisely quantify, the sense of being eclipsed demographically is almost certainly compounding the white working class’s fear of losing ground economically. That huge bloc of Americans increasingly feels itself left behind—and lacks faith that either government or business cares much about its plight. Under these pressures, noncollege whites are now experiencing rates of out-of-wedlock birth and single parenthood approaching the levels that triggered worries about the black family a generation ago. Alarm bells should be ringing now about the social and economic trends in the battered white working class and the piercing cry of distress rising from this latest survey.
3c)Who's Winning the Budget War?
Republicans are forcing Democrats to acknowledge that voters want spending reform.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Here's the Washington headline of the week that nobody in America got to read: Paul Ryan, 40. Barack Obama, 0.
Forty is the number of Senate votes that went in favor of Mr. Ryan's reformist budget, a tally that included nearly every Senate Republican. Zero is the number of votes President Obama got for his own tax-and-spend budget, a blueprint that not one of his own party had the backbone to support. It went down, 97-0.
Washington is in a game of high-stakes chicken over raising the debt limit, though so far only one side is flinching. According to the headlines (and Democrats), Republicans are on defense over Mr. Ryan's plan, are risking America's creditworthiness, and are delaying sensible compromise by refusing tax increases. It is only a matter of time, goes the betting, before the party swerves.
This has little relation to reality, in which it is Democrats who keep calling their own bluffs. It was Mr. Obama who first swerved, submitting a "do-over" of his initial, embarrassing budget. It is Democrats who have since swerved on the debt-limit debate, agreeing to spending-cut negotiations, then continuing to up the size of a package.
By refusing to blink, Republicans keep forcing Democrats to acknowledge a very simple political reality: Voters do want spending reform, and do not want tax hikes. That's why this debate has so far moved in the GOP's direction.
The White House's first bluff was its argument that America would crater if the GOP did not immediately hold a "clean" debt limit vote, allowing the administration to continue freely borrowing—no spending-reform attached. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was betting markets would respond to his public warnings and exhibit some turmoil in fear of "default."
The GOP instead refused to back down, and Treasury keeps finding money to make payments. The markets have concluded that nobody will actually allow a default, and interest rates haven't budged. If anything, financial players are in line with a recent Washington Post poll showing far more Americans worried about America's debt levels than about an immediate risk of default.
These stats are why the White House swerved from its "clean" vote demand and dispatched Vice President Joe Biden to negotiate spending cuts. It's why Democrats have gone from insisting they couldn't cough up more than a few hundred billion to Mr. Biden this week floating a $1 trillion figure.
It's also why Democrats are cringing from the very "clean" vote they once demanded. "I will not vote for a clean debt limit extension if no Republicans vote for it and instead use it just to demagogue," complained Democratic Minority Whip Steny Hoyer. Democrats were happy to demand a clean vote when they hoped to scare Republicans into voting with them. They aren't so keen to go it solo in favor of more borrowing and no reform.
Now comes the bluff that Republicans risk derailing negotiations if they don't agree to "revenue" (Democratic code for "tax hikes"). Obama National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling insists House Republicans are completely "isolated" on this issue. "Serious people doing serious discussions do not take an absolutist position that you cannot have a penny of revenue," he said.
Really? If tax hikes are so serious, presumably serious Senate Democrats would this week have finally put out a serious budget, outlining their serious tax hikes.
They didn't. They instead swerved and took the punk route of all voting against Mr. Ryan's plan. That's because serious Senate Democrats have worked out that the only way to get the "revenue" they need to cover their spending is to seriously hit up the middle class. And with 23 seats up for re-election, no serious Senate Democrat wants to go on the record voting for that. Seriously. Unless they can scare Republicans into going along with them.
This week's GOP loss of a special election in New York (which revolved around Mr. Ryan's reform) has reinforced another Democratic bluff—that any discussion of entitlement reform is politically "toxic." The left knows entitlements are where the big spending reforms are, and they are eager to get them off the negotiating table.
Yet the GOP once again refused to swerve. One day after the special-election loss, nearly every Senate Republican voted for Mr. Ryan's plan. Democrats, by contrast, didn't have the pluck to cast one vote for their president's reform-less plan.
Such abdications are beginning to gain notice. On NBC's "Meet the Press" last weekend, host David Gregory put this to ranking House Budget member Chris Van Hollen: "[Mr. Ryan] is saying, accurately, that you Democrats don't have a plan, and we have a budget crisis." Mr. Van Hollen was left to stumble on about "some" Democratic reforms, such as to "incentivize" more "value" in health care.
Republicans should know this: Nobody would even be asking these questions of Democrats if the GOP had blinked.
3d)I Can Tell You Exactly When the Next Recession Begins
By Dr. Steve Sjuggerud
I can tell you when the next recession will begin…
An incredibly simple indicator has correctly predicted 10 out of the last nine recessions over the last half-century.
(I say "10 out of the last nine" because it once predicted a recession that didn't come – and that was over 40 years ago.)
Take a look:
I have two good pieces of news for you today…
The first piece of good news is: As you can see from the chart, this indicator typically gives us plenty of lead time before a recession begins, and it's not signaling now.
The second piece of good news is: Right now, this signal is a LONG WAY from signaling a new recession…
Let me explain what our simple indicator is… You might laugh, it's so simple. But simple is part of what we want to do in True Wealth Systems… There's elegance in the simplicity. And when it's simple, it's easy to understand why it works… and why it may continue to work.
Our simple indicator signals when short-term interest rates rise above long-term interest rates. That's it. (Specifically, it's when the interest rates on one-year Treasurys go higher than 10-year Treasurys.)
This is an unnatural situation – an artificial one. Why? Naturally, you should demand more interest for a longer-term loan.
But you see, the government controls short-term interest rates. And when it wants to "put the brakes on the economy," it raises short-term interest rates. When it raises short-term interest rates so high that one-year rates rise above 10-year rates, the government has gone too far.
The economy can't handle that unnatural situation. But it takes a while to filter through. And a year later (or so), a recession begins.
Right now, based on this indicator, we're in no danger of recession.
On the contrary, based on this indicator, we're at risk of "bubbles" in the economy. The government has created the opposite unnatural situation… It has cut short-term interest rates to essentially zero, and it has promised to keep them there for "the foreseeable future."
It takes a while for the effects to filter into the economy… But a year from now, the economy could be soaring because of this unnatural situation. This is what the government wants. Then, eventually, it will want to put the brakes on… And the cycle will repeat.
It is safe to say our recession indicator won't signal for well over a year – more likely years from now. And after the signal, it then takes roughly a year for the recession to kick in.
In short, you've likely got years of boom ahead of you… Our True Wealth Systems indicator says recession is years away.
(We've also developed a totally different True Wealth Systems indicator that pinpoints the end of a recession before anyone else knows it's happened. But that's a story for another day…)
You can pile many other factors in of course… The economy is certainly a complicated beast.
But again, we like to keep it simple. Our extremely simple True Wealth Systems recession indicator has successfully predicted 10 out of the last nine recessions.
Right now, it's saying there's no recession on the horizon… Boom is more likely than recession. And its track record makes it worth paying attention to!
Good investing,
Steve
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)What Obama did to Israel
By Charles Krauthammer
Every Arab-Israeli negotiation contains a fundamental asymmetry: Israel gives up land, which is tangible; the Arabs make promises, which are ephemeral. The long-standing American solution has been to nonetheless urge Israel to take risks for peace while America balances things by giving assurances of U.S. support for Israel’s security and diplomatic needs.
It’s on the basis of such solemn assurances that Israel undertook, for example, the Gaza withdrawal. In order to mitigate this risk, President George W. Bush gave a written commitment that America supported Israel absorbing major settlement blocs in any peace agreement, opposed any return to the 1967 lines and stood firm against the so-called Palestinian right of return to Israel.
For 21 / 2 years, the Obama administration has refused to recognize and reaffirm these assurances. Then last week in his State Department speech, President Obama definitively trashed them. He declared that the Arab-Israeli conflict should indeed be resolved along “the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.”
Nothing new here, said Obama three days later. “By definition, it means that the parties themselves — Israelis and Palestinians — will negotiate a border that is different” from 1967.
It means nothing of the sort. “Mutually” means both parties have to agree. And if one side doesn’t? Then, by definition, you’re back to the 1967 lines.
Nor is this merely a theoretical proposition. Three times the Palestinians have been offered exactly that formula, 1967 plus swaps — at Camp David 2000, Taba 2001, and the 2008 Olmert-Abbas negotiations. Every time, the Palestinians said no and walked away.
And that remains their position today: The 1967 lines. Period. Indeed, in September the Palestinians are going to the United Nations to get the world to ratify precisely that — a Palestinian state on the ’67 lines. No swaps.
Note how Obama has undermined Israel’s negotiating position. He is demanding that Israel go into peace talks having already forfeited its claim to the territory won in the ’67 war — its only bargaining chip. Remember: That ’67 line runs right through Jerusalem. Thus the starting point of negotiations would be that the Western Wall and even Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter are Palestinian — alien territory for which Israel must now bargain.
The very idea that Judaism’s holiest shrine is alien or that Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter is rightfully or historically or demographically Arab is an absurdity. And the idea that, in order to retain them, Israel has to give up parts of itself is a travesty.
Obama didn’t just move the goal posts on borders. He also did so on the so-called right of return. Flooding Israel with millions of Arabs would destroy the world’s only Jewish state while creating a 23rd Arab state and a second Palestinian state — not exactly what we mean when we speak of a “two-state solution.” That’s why it has been the policy of the United States to adamantly oppose this “right.”
Yet in his State Department speech, Obama refused to simply restate this position — and refused again in a supposedly corrective speech three days later. Instead, he told Israel it must negotiate the right of return with the Palestinians after having given every inch of territory. Bargaining with what, pray tell?
No matter. “The status quo is unsustainable,” declared Obama, “and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.”
Israel too ? Exactly what bold steps for peace have the Palestinians taken? Israel made three radically conciliatory offers to establish a Palestinian state, withdrew from Gaza and has been trying to renew negotiations for more than two years. Meanwhile, the Gaza Palestinians have been firing rockets at Israeli towns and villages. And on the West Bank, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas turns down then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s offer, walks out of negotiations with Binyamin Netanyahu and now defies the United States by seeking not peace talks but instant statehood — without peace, without recognizing Israel — at the United Nations. And to make unmistakable this spurning of any peace process, Abbas agrees to join the openly genocidal Hamas in a unity government, which even Obama acknowledges makes negotiations impossible.
Obama’s response to this relentless Palestinian intransigence? To reward it — by abandoning the Bush assurances, legitimizing the ’67 borders and refusing to reaffirm America’s rejection of the right of return.
The only remaining question is whether this perverse and ultimately self-defeating policy is born of genuine antipathy toward Israel or of the arrogance of a blundering amateur who refuses to see that he is undermining not just peace but the very possibility of negotiations.
4a)In the Tent, or Out:
That is Still the J-Street Question
J-Street needs to show us that it cares about Israel
more than it cares about dialogue with Israel's enemies
[Note: On May 3rd, Daniel Gordis addressed the "J-Street Leadership Mission to Israel and Palestine." The following column is based on his remarks that day.]
Good morning and welcome to Jerusalem. It's a pleasure to meet with this Leadership Mission; I understand that there are some first time visitors to Israel among you, so a particular welcome to those of you who've never been here before.
Before we got seated, one member of your group conveyed a message from the Israeli Consul General in his home community. The message was that I shouldn't speak to you. As you can imagine, I received similar advice from a wide array of people after I received your invitation; but I've chosen to ignore it. As most of you know, I disagree strongly with much of what you do. But I think that we have an obligation to meet with people with whom we disagree. Given the extent of the forces aligned against Israel, seeking to delegitimize the very idea of a Jewish State, the pro-Israel camp needs a big tent. Neither Israel nor the Jewish People will survive if we work only with those with whom we agree. A big tent, by definition, means including people whom we disagree passionately, but who still share our basic goals.
Even a big tent, though, has its limits. There are things that one can say, or do, that place a person or an organization outside that tent. You know very well that there are many people who believe that J-Street is outside the tent, not in it. I'm not yet certain. That's why I'm here.
Let me begin with a basic assumption: I assume that we want the same thing. We seek two states in this region, one a thriving, Jewish, democratic Israel, and the other a thriving, non-Jewish, democratic Palestine. Of course, there are Israelis on both ends of the political spectrum who do not wish this. Some Israelis no longer believe in the importance of a Jewish State and would prefer a State "of all its citizens" between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. But as that would make Jews a minority in this country and thus end the Zionist project, I'm utterly opposed to that. There are also Israelis who still resist the idea of a Palestinian State and who would prefer to either exile millions of Palestinians or forever keep them under our thumb as non-citizens, either of which is morally obtuse. But the vast majority of Israelis, if presented with a genuine opportunity to live side by side a democratic, transparent, peaceful, de-militarized Palestine, would accept it.
So, assuming that that's what you also seek, I assume that our disagreement is about how to get there. You believe that people who are not willing to make major territorial concessions to the Palestinians right now are not serious about a two-state solution. You think that those of us who claim that we favor a two-state solution but who are not willing to give up the store at this moment are bluffing. Or we're liars. Or, at best, we're well-intentioned but misguided. But bottom line, if we're not willing now to make the concessions that you think are called for, then we're not really pursuing peace.
But that is arrogance of the worst sort. Does your distance from the conflict give you some moral clarity that we don't have? Are you smarter than we are? Are you less racist? Why do you assume with such certainty that you have a monopoly on the wisdom needed to get to the goal we both seek?
In preparing for this morning's session, I did a bit of reading of statements that you've issued on a whole array issues. One, just released, is a perfect example of the certainty and arrogance of which I'm speaking. Reacting to the most recent Fatah-Hamas agreement, this is what J-Street had to say:
"In fact, many who oppose a two-state deal have, in recent years, done so by arguing that divisions among the Palestinians make peace impossible. Obviously, reconciliation [between Fatah and Hamas] reduces that obstacle - but now skeptics of a two-state agreement have immediately stepped forward to say that a deal is impossible with a Palestinian unity government that includes Hamas."
"Obviously," you say, "reconciliation reduces the obstacle [to a peace treaty]." But I would caution you against ever using the word "obviously" when it comes to the Middle East. Nothing here is obvious. If you think that something is obvious, then you simply haven't thought enough. Why is it obvious that Fatah's signing a deal with Hamas, which rejects Israel's very right to exist, reduces obstacles to peace? Isn't it just as plausible that it makes peace impossible, or that signing a deal and returning large swathes of land to a group still sworn on our destruction would be suicidal? I suppose that reasonable minds could debate this matter, but how is it "obvious" that this is good news for peace?
And then you go on to say that "skeptics of a two-state agreement have immediately stepped forward to say that a deal is impossible with a Palestinian unity government that includes Hamas." There you go again, telling us that if we don't agree with you, then we're not serious or honest. If we think that the Fatah-Hamas deal is terrible news for peace, then we're just "skeptics of a two-state agreement." In your world view, there's no possibility that we're just a bit more nervous than you are, that we do not want to make a mistake that will turn our own homes into Sederot, that we are frightened of restoring the horror of 2000-2004 to our streets, buses and restaurants. No, that possibility doesn't exist, because anyone who doesn't agree with you is by definition a "skeptic of the two-state agreement." I'd suggest that if you want to convince those of us still deciding whether you're part of the big tent that you are "in," that you drop this sort of condescension. It's arrogant and intellectually shallow; it doesn't serve you well.
And if you want those of us who are still unsure to become convinced that you are part of the Big Tent, then I have another piece of advice for you - recognize that not everyone can be part of the tent. There are groups who are clearly opposed to Israel's existence as a Jewish state; they are our enemies. It doesn't matter if they are in Israel or outside, or if they are Jewish or not. If they are working to end Israel, or to end it as a Jewish and democratic state, then they are our enemies, plain and simple. There are enemies who cannot be loved or compromised into submission, and you need to recognize that.
The BDS [Boycott, Divest and Sanction] movement is a case in point. No one in their right mind doubts that BDS is opposed to Israel's continued existence as a Jewish State. So why were they invited to your annual conference? There need to be limits to those whom you'd welcome into your tent. You need to show us that you care about Israel more than you care about dialogue with Israel's enemies.
I still remember the first time I was struck by this tendency of yours to assail Israel when you'd been silent about what Israel's enemies were doing. It was the first day of the Gaza War at the end of 2008. Sederot had been shelled intermittently for eight years, and relentlessly in the days prior to the beginning of the war. It was obvious that this couldn't go on, for the first obligation of states to their citizens is to protect them. For years, Israel had been failing the citizens of Sederot. But when Israel finally decided to do what any legitimate state would do, J-Street immediately called for a cessation of hostilities. The war was only hours old, nothing had been accomplished and the citizens of Sederot were still no safer than they had been. But J-Street had had enough. Why? Why had you said almost nothing for all the years that Sederot was being shelled, but within hours of the war's beginning were calling for it to end? What matters more to you - the safety of Israel's citizens, or advancing your own moral agenda in our region of the world?
If you want us to be convinced that you're in the Big Tent, show us. Show us that there are times that you will stand up for Israel, not her enemies. Explain why you lobbied Congress against a resolution condemning incitement in Palestinian schools. Explain why, when Israel is marginalized as never before (a recent poll showed that Europeans rank Israel and North Korea as the greatest threats to world peace!), you pressured the US not to veto a UN resolution on settlements, which the mainstream of American Jewry all thought need to be vetoed.
And ask yourselves this: if you were to take all the money you're spending in the United States and do your work here in Israel, trying to strengthen the political parties who are more inclined to do what you seek, how much traction would you get? We all know that you would get a pretty chilly reception. Ask yourself why that is. Is it that we Israelis really don't want to end this conflict? We enjoy sending our children off to war? We look forward to the next funeral at Mount Herzl? We're not aware that time is not on our side?
Or is it that we live here, and that even rank and file Israelis know a bit more about the complexity of this conflict than you give us credit for? Why would you assume that we're stupid, or immoral, or addicted to the conflict? Why do you insist that the Fatah-Hamas agreement is a good thing, or that it's best for Israel if the United States twists its arm even harder? At a time when Israel is so alone, can you see why it's hard for many of us to buy the argument that you're genuinely pro-Israel, or that you should be part of the Big Tent?
It's time for you to show us. Show us that you seek peace, that you care about the Palestinians, but that even more (yes, more, because that's what the particularism of peoplehood requires), that you care about us. It's one thing to put "pro-Israel" in your tag line, and another to be "pro-Israel." You certainly don't need to be a rubber stamp for Israeli policy - that's not what's at issue. Israel desperately needs critique, and Israelis issue it all the time. So, too, should Diaspora Jews.
No, what's at issue is for us to see you pressure someone, anytime, to be in Israel's camp on something. That's what we want to see. When we see that, more of us will believe that you're part of our tent, and then, even with all our disagreements, we'll be convinced that we could work together for a better future for all the peoples of this region.
Postscript: in the Q&A session that followed, J-Street Founder Jeremy Ben Ami asked the first question. He said that he found it "astounding" that I had given an entire presentation "without mentioning the occupation of another people." But interestingly, in the May 12th issue of Globes, Vered Kellner, who traveled with the group and went with them from my session to their meeting with Salaam Fayyad, noted that Fayyad didn't mention the occupation either. "Is it possible that the occupation conversation simply doesn't interest anyone anymore?" she asked.
"True," Ben Ami answered, "neither Gordis nor Fayyad raised the occupation, but we're here to remind Israelis that you can't pretend that the occupation isn't part of reality."
So here's my final suggestion - if the way that you're framing the issues is longer the way that Israelis and Palestinians are discussing them, is it possible that you are not even addressing the core issues that matter to the people actually in the conflict? Perhaps the time has come to ask yourselves what matters to you more: actually moving the policy needle, or assuaging your own discomfort with the undeniably painful complexities of this conflict. If what you want to do is to affect policy, how effective would you say you've been thus far?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)O'Bama? Oh puh-lease!
By James Delingpole
Ah Bejaysus and Begorrah! Oi’ll be swearin’ boi the auld shrine to the Vorgin with the shamrocks growin’ round it next to the hill where Cuchullain slew the Great Leprechaun of Kildare on St Patrick’s Day that Barack Seamus O’Toole Flaherty Joyce O’Bama is the most Irish US president that ever set foot on the Emerald Oisle, so he is, so he is.
Except, when he’s in Africa, of course, when he disappears into the dry ice and re-emerges with a grass skirt and a bone through his nose and declares himself to be Mandingo, Prince of the Bloodline of the Bonga People, Drinker of Cattle Urine, Father of A Thousand Warrior Sons, Keeper of King Solomon’s Mines, Barehanded Slayer of Lions, Undaunted Victim of the Evil Colonial British Empire.
And in the Middle East, where he is Al-Barak Hussein Obama, Protector of the Holy Shrine, Smiter of the Kuffar, Lion of the Desert, Tent-Loving-Aficionado-of-the-Oversweetened-Coffee, Chomper of Sheeps’ Eyeballs, Restorer of the Caliphate.
Etc.
Tony Blair used to do this trick too, his accent mutating from broad Glaswegian to genteel Edinburgh to Mummerset to Estuary to Richard E Grant to Sarf London Grime – often in the course of one Downing Street reception – the better to persuade his target audience that he was their kind of guy. And it is, of course, the hallmark of an unutterable charlatan.
I’ve argued before that Tony Blair and Barack Obama have an awful lot in common. Both are lawyers; both are snake-oil-salesman; both claim to be post-partisan, and Third Way and consensual; both play the acceptable, moderate-seeming public face of a regime chock full of Communists, class warriors, single issue rabble rousers, malcontents, communitarians and eco-loons hell bent on destroying every last vestige of what once made their country great. And both do (or did) the things dodgy political leaders always do when the going gets tough at home and their domestic audience finally wises up to how totally useless they are: they hop on the plane and pose as international statesman instead.
My colleague Damian Thompson appears to be under the impression that Obama is a great guy because he said nice things about the Queen. Look, I think the Queen’s great too, but did it really not occur to my distinguished colleague (and editor) that there might have been a hint of an ulterior motive here? Obama can’t stand Britain (his wife likes us even less): he made that clear enough when he sent back Winston Churchill’s bust and dissed our Prime Minister with those dodgy DVDS. He blames us for what happened to his grandfather during Mau Mau. He doesn’t believe in the Special Relationship. Are we honestly supposed to believe in that during the subsequent year in office, Obama has since acquired such wisdom and insight that he suddenly realises how special we are?
Of course he hasn’t. Obama is just doing now what all bullies and losers start doing when they realise how unpopular they are and that everyone is abandoning them. They suck up to anybody and everybody. They whore themselves piteously before enemies they once considered beneath their contempt. Fain will they fill their bellies with husks that swine eat – but which no man will give them: and serve them jolly well right, too!
By all means let us enjoy watching Obama smarm and grovel and ingratiate himself like some presidential Uriah Heep. But for heaven’s sake let us never give him the benefit of the doubt. He’s a cold fish and would certainly never show any mercy towards us were the roles to be reversed.
James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including 365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy, Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) An excerpt from American Interest.
"But the last few weeks have cast him as the least competent manager of America’s Middle East diplomatic portfolio in a very long time. He has infuriated and frustrated long term friends, but made no headway in reconciling enemies. He has strained our ties with the established regimes without winning new friends on the Arab Street. He has committed our forces in the strategically irrelevant backwater of Libya not, as he originally told us, for “days, not weeks” but for months not days.
Where he has failed so dramatically is in the arena he himself has so frequently identified as vital: the search for peace between Palestinians and Israelis. His record of grotesque, humiliating and total diplomatic failure in his dealings with Prime Minister Netanyahu has few parallels in American history. Three times he has gone up against Netanyahu; three times he has ingloriously failed. This last defeat — Netanyahu’s deadly, devastating speech to Congress in which he eviscerated President Obama’s foreign policy to prolonged and repeated standing ovations by members of both parties — may have been the single most stunning and effective public rebuke to an American President a foreign leader has ever delivered.
Netanyahu beat Obama like a red-headed stepchild; he played him like a fiddle; he pounded him like a big brass drum. The Prime Minister of Israel danced rings around his arrogant, professorial opponent. It was like watching the Harlem Globetrotters go up against the junior squad from Miss Porter’s School; like watching Harvard play Texas A&M, like watching Bambi meet Godzilla — or Bill Clinton run against Bob Dole.
The Prime Minister mopped the floor with our guy. Obama made his ’67 speech; Bibi ripped him to shreds. Obama goes to AIPAC, nervous, off-balance, backing and filling. Then Bibi drops the C-Bomb, demonstrating to the whole world that the Prime Minister of Israel has substantially more support in both the House and the Senate than the President of the United States."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment