The cloak of a democratic election provides cover for Muslim radicalism. The Middle East is heading the way of all flesh and Obama and the West stand helpless. However, at least they can take comfort in knowing their naive and misguided policies helped produce the outcome.
Now their mission becomes selling us on the idea The Muslim Brotherhood has peaceful intentions.
History will show Carter's fecklessness helped begin the increasing radicalization of the Middle East and that GW's own arguable efforts to bring a semblance of Arab democracy were undercut by Obama's incompetence and dreamy naivety.
It is difficult to believe the consequences will not lead to another war.(See 1 and 1a below.)
---
Herman Cain's Lesson:
If you are black, conservative and possibly 'messed around' stay out of the spotlight of politics 'cause you gonna be found out and 'dissed' by the liberal media and press.
If you are black and liberal engage in politics 'cause you are gonna be crowned and elevated as a messiah by that same liberal media and press. (See 2 below.)
And, if you are black, have been appointed by Obama to high office, lie and screw up you have little to worry about 'cause the liberal press and media will ignore your ethical transgressions.
Our Two Lessons:
If you are the liberal media and press you can cover-up cover-ups and though you must treat all blacks equally, you can treat some more equally than others. (See 2a below.)
---
A righteous Israeli - this cannot be according to the liberal media, press, The U.N. and most Europeans. (See 3 below.)
---
Putting America's interests last because you gotta do what you gotta do come election time or you are simply misguided! You get to decide come Nov. 2012.(See 4 below.)
---
Obama drones on but this time gets shot down. (See 5 below.)
---
Is Detroit a picture forecast of America's fate and therefore future?
There was a time when Detroit flourished and was the epitome of what Capitalism could accomplish. Then its success was manipulated by progressive socialist theory. Now Detroit has become a tragic wasteland, deserted by the liberals who have dispersed to other regions of America carrying their bankrupt theories with them. (See 6 below.)
Does David Brooks offer a lesson for Detroit? You decide. (See 6a below.)
---
Congress gets richer, the rest of us get screwed. This author suggests we buy raffle tickets. We have already bet on Congress and that has proven a losing proposition so why get more in debt when the government (that's us) is already doing this. (See 7 below.)
---
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Egypt Elects Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists
By Yisrael Ne'eman
The first round of results from the Egyptian elections is no great surprise except for the magnitude of the Islamist victory. Even though elections were held in the more "liberal" districts including Cairo, the Muslim Brotherhood and extremist Salafis won an estimated 40% and 20+% of the vote respectively. They will increase their power when the more conservative regions have their chance to vote over the next two months. Somewhere between two-thirds and three-quarters of the Egyptian parliament will be dominated by Islamic groups in one form or another.
One fact is for sure, Western media and in particular the more left wing commentators were completely wrong, these having expected the elections to represent liberal approaches to democracy, freedom, individual rights and an overall open society.
Now instead many will hail the free and democratic election process – short lived as it may prove to be. Already there is speculation that the Brotherhood will align itself with the liberal more secular parties and banish the Salafis to the opposition. To believe the common Islamic understandings and values to be less of a cohesive factor than a loyalty to human rights and the democratic system of government is to underestimate the power of belief in the infallibility of Allah and Sharia law.
Islamists favor elections when assured of victory or need to test the waters. They are far less willing to concede power should they expect a reversal in fortunes a few years down the road. The Islamic world views Western liberalism as a foreign implant – which it is. Elections are to be used as a tool for the benefit of Islam while the peoples' will is not a value in itself, unless that "will" conforms to "Islam is the Answer". In the future elections will be superfluous should they be deemed so by the clerics, or elections will be limited to the correct political sphere such as in Iran.
True, there is a liberal opposition alongside those who continue to support the previous regime and military. However within a few years one can expect the Facebook/Twitter young liberals who are credited with sparking the revolution to be ushered into oblivion if the election results have not done so already. The military will undergo an Islamization through a synthesis with the Brotherhood and its Salafi allies. These two share one major value, a great distaste for democracy.
Parliamentarianism will not gain hold despite the elections. In the foreseeable future one can expect the curtailment of women's and minority (Coptic Christians) rights in the New Egypt. Individual freedoms were generally repressed in Egypt and will continue to be so but more harshly. There are those who claim Egypt and the Arab/Muslim World are going backwards. From a liberal democratic Western perspective this will be proven true, however from the Islamic understanding all are making great positive strides towards full faith and trust in Allah. "Backwards" is a very subjective term. Sharia law can be expected to take root more firmly and some form of "Enabling Act" eliminating parliament, such as was in 1930s Germany may be considered.
The West is impotent to influence almost anything. It does not matter if one is speaking of Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Liberals or anyone else. There is no real leverage on Egypt even should the Americans decide to halt all military aid. Egypt will begin a period of reconsolidation where the immediate issues have little to do with war. The peasantry and urban destitute constituting the vast majority of Egypt are concerned with the next life as much as they are with this one. Religion plays the ultimate role. Over the decades they have seen little improvement, if any, in their daily existence and do not have great expectations. Egypt can get by on a subsistence plus economy while the emerging Islamic state will dominate infrastructure, following the Iranian example.
The Islamic revolutionary direction is unstoppable and irreversible. It must run its course and can be expected to be accompanied by a fair amount of violence both within its society and towards outside elements whether it be the West in general or Israel in particular. The Jewish State can expect increasing terrorism on its Egyptian border but a full scale war within the next few years does not appear likely. If and how long the peace agreement will hold up is not clear. But more about this at another time.
Egypt has the ability to lead and others who already have Islamic regimes such as Sudan and Saudi Arabia will follow alongside those with emerging Islamist governments such as Libya, Tunisia and Morocco. The moderation of the last two will be challenged. Transition is coming to Iraq after the American exit and the secular Ba'ath regime in Syria is on the way out. These two countries may break into pieces, but their Sunni Muslim religious elements will form the new power elite in areas remaining under their domain regardless of the new governing constellations.
So how should the West respond? Firstly there is no ability to intervene successfully. However it must be made clear that there is to be no "export of the revolution" meaning Jihad. What is called "Defensive Jihad" to reclaim lands previously ruled by Islam is as out of the question as is "Offensive Jihad" where Islamic governments decide on world conquest. It must be made clear to the Islamic world that any Jihad will be countered with massive punishing force leading to major infrastructure elimination and the complete disruption of those societies. Much more problematic will be the battle against terrorism. Western vigilance to ensure its own well being is only part of the battle. Countries harboring terrorists must be made to pay the price with serious damage being done to their interests. The West can attempt containment and mutual non-aggression but no one knows whether the Islamic World will agree.
Egypt is a major player in the Arab and Islamic World with a population of over 80 million. The people are truly voting their conscience and democracy will not be the winner. The West needs to confront the new rising Islamic powers throughout the world, insure its own values and societal well being and hope they will not be forced into another major clash between Islam and Christendom. When reviewing Islamist beliefs and philosophies one understands that the chances of keeping the peace are not particularly good.
1a)Egypt's parliament isn't Muslim Brotherhood's first win this year
By Hannah Allam
The Group has already been quietly staking claim to several areas of a society in transition
With results of the first round of parliamentary polling due today, Egyptians are preparing for what partial tallies show will be a sweeping win for the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist political force that was the archenemy of deposed President Hosni Mubarak.
Winning a dominant voice in the next parliament would be only the latest electoral victory that the Brotherhood has celebrated since Mubarak's ouster last February.
Thanks to the lifting of the old regime's laws restricting labor activity,
Brotherhood-affiliated candidates in recent months have swept the internal polls for the union-like syndicates that represent millions of Egyptians. In a series of victories stretching back to June, Brotherhood candidates have taken control of syndicates for pharmacists, lawyers, teachers and engineers.
They've even taken a majority of seats on the board of one of Cairo's best-known sports and recreation clubs.
Those smaller races hold timely lessons for what to expect when the group's leadership takes the national stage, analysts say. Each victory provides insight into the Brotherhood's strengths - and weaknesses - as it prepares to confront expectant constituents, bitter liberals and nervous Western powers.
"Power is a double-edged sword," warned Shadi Hamid, a Brotherhood expert at the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar who had just spent several days observing the group on the campaign trail in Egypt.
"With the Brotherhood now in a dominant position in Egyptian society, they'll be expected to implement changes," Hamid said. "Now they'll have to deliver, and they haven't had to deliver for the past 80 years," a reference to the Brotherhood's founding in 1928.
One of the first tasks the Brotherhood will confront is countering the stereotypes about what life will be like under its rule.
Already, liberal and leftist leaders are mustering an opposition bloc to counter the Brotherhood's newfound sway and to, in the words of Refaat el Said, the head of the leftist Tagammu Party, "defend the civil state and principles of equality and justice."
"They're saying they're willing to cooperate with leftists and liberals, but it's a different case once they're in parliament," Said said. "They'll start an Islamist bloc that only serves their interests."
National-level public office always has been the Brotherhood's ultimate dream, analysts say, and the group laid the groundwork years ago when it began targeting the internal elections of Egypt's many syndicates, union-like groups that protect workers' interests, though they aren't nearly as influential here as their counterparts in the United States.
The Brotherhood's success in those syndicate elections "gave us a lot of practical experience in handling issues of public concern," recalled Amr Darrag, an engineer who heads the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party for Giza province.
When the Mubarak government realized in the late 1980s and early 1990s that the Brotherhood was moving to control the syndicates, it severely restricted the syndicates' ability to hold elections.
The Engineers' Syndicate was one example. When the Brotherhood was poised to lead the huge guild, the government shut down the body and appointed a judge to be the guardian of its affairs. That arrangement continued for 17 years, crippling the organization and cowing its members.
Then, earlier this year, Egypt's highest court overturned the former regime's laws, paving the way to free elections for trade syndicates and giving the country's political class a dress rehearsal for the parliamentary polls.
Brotherhood-affiliated candidates easily won the Engineers' Syndicate election just days before the parliamentary polls opened.
Local news media covered the union vote closely, quoting syndicate members as concerned over how much say the Brotherhood's executive board would have over the syndicate's 475,000 engineers.
"If the Brotherhood wins, who will take the decisions? The Supreme Guidance bureau or the syndicate?" Hesham Sedawy, a member engineer, told an Egyptian newspaper.
Before the engineers' victory, Brotherhood-affiliated lawyers won more than half the seats on the board of the influential Lawyers' Syndicate. While the non-Brotherhood incumbent chairman narrowly retained his seat, Brotherhood followers swept the general polls, leaving just two seats on the board for nonmembers.
In September, Muslim Brotherhood candidates handily beat their opponents for control of the Teachers' Syndicate, Egypt's largest guild, with an estimated 1.2 million members. In June, Brotherhood-linked candidates took over the Pharmacists' Syndicate by a landslide.
"We're working hard to pass this test and prove that the people who voted for us chose parliamentarians that understand and appreciate their confidence and trust," said Mohammed el Beltagi, one of the most visible Brotherhood leaders. "People voted for us, and that's the first sign that they expect guarantees from us. It's now the time to prove that they weren't wrong."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)The Lessons of Cain
By Anthony J.Ciani
Politics and news are dirty. Herman Cain is not the first political candidate slandered and libeled by the drive-by media, and he will certainly not be the last. Why "drive-by"? Because they report and spin unverified information, without any regard to the people they defame, or worse, with the explicit aim of defaming them. Yes, defamation. Somehow, news outlets have managed to insulate themselves from the liability of defamation, by reporting other peoples' slander about public figures: slander by proxy, or by spinning facts to make things seem worse then they were: slander by error.
The spectacle surrounding Cain was highly reminiscent of what happened to Jack Ryan, who was accused of having kinky sex, with his wife. It was a non-story; something befitting the rags in the checkout lines of the local convenience stores, but the Chicago "news" media, strong supporters of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, hounded Ryan about having sex with his wife. The kinky allegations may not have even been true, as they came from allegations made in a bitter divorce, and his ex-wife refused to comment on them. Long after the non-story should have been dropped, it was the only thing the reporters asked Ryan about, until he ended his campaign. The real story, which was largely ignored, was how the sealed allegations came to public notice.
Cain was different, you think? Think again. The first two allegations, made 15 years ago when Cain was at the NRA, were both non-starters. They were both investigated, at the time, and both found to be false. Cain himself was unaware of one, and had recused himself from handling the other. For the third allegation, the attorney for Sharon Bialek was Gloria Allred, which gives her accusations all the credibility of an alien autopsy video from 1947, lacking negatives, and filmed in HD. The latest accuser, Ginger White, is another non-starter, as there seems to be an important aspect missing from her so-called affair: the sex. Everything White has accused Cain of seems very platonic, like being invited to Cain's hotel room to... plan a future meeting. Even worse, 13 years of voice mails and text messages, and there is still no evidence of what most people would call an affair. It makes Ms. White seem a little yandere.
What did the press do with these laughable accusations? Embellished them, double and triple counted them, and reported them endlessly, to the point that no one knew how many accusations or accusers there were. They even mixed in some unfounded rumors of accusations, to just add to the confusion.
In contrast, did you know that Barack Obama was accused of some shocking behavior? Larry Sinclair, a man, told a story about how in 1999, he shared a limo with Obama, they did some lines of cocaine together, and then Larry orally gratified Obama. Larry outed Obama on YouTube, because no news outlet showed interest in his story. Instead of spending every waking moment hounding Obama about this accuser, the news media did everything they could to forget that Larry Sinclair ever existed. The ones who could not forget about Sinclair, did everything they could to discredit him. Pretty much the same thing that was done to all of the accusers of Bill Clinton.
The lesson is not about how the so-called news media engages in defamation by proxy, or about how the media is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party. We already knew these things.
The first lesson is that even knowing this, we still continue to fall for it. The news media has time and time again revealed that, in terms of politics and policy, it has its own agendas, which often conflict with the interests of the American people. As a conservative, one might make the general rule that the news media is the propaganda division of the opposing philosophy, yet we still allow ourselves to be influenced by it. Why would Obama's friends promote a candidate who could threaten him? Yet the candidate the media promotes is still hanging on in second place, loved by almost a full quarter of the people who want Obama gone. Fat chance, if the media gets its way. The media would certainly defame a good, strong conservative, and they did a good job, apparently.
The second lesson is a little more difficult to see, because the media has turned politics into a thick, ugly haze. How can we tell which accusations are real, and which are fake? The corruption and arrest of Rod Blagojevich (D-IL) was no surprise to the Republicans of Illinois, because the allegations were out there. The arrest was a surprise to the average voter of Illinois, because they were led to believe, by the media, that the allegations were just campaign hype.
The second lesson makes a general rule: when you see smoke published about a Democrat, there is probably a roaring, multi-alarm fire. In fact, the town has probably already burned down. When you see smoke about a Republican, it is probably smoke, and there may or may not be a fire. When you see fire about a Republican, it is probably a show, so dig deep, find the unedited video or original quote, and think for yourself.
The final lesson: a functioning democracy needs a reliable news media. We do not have one, which is perhaps why we are a representative republic. News agencies are for-profit entities, and rely on customers. Find news sources that are reliable, and purchase them. Watch the channel, click on their banner ads, or subscribe to their print. For the propaganda rags, learn who they are, and do not even glance at them. Do not follow their Google hits, cancel the subscriptions, and avoid flipping through the channel (maybe even block it, and forget the code). Competition and market demand will sort this problem out, or at least to the point where the media defames everyone equally.
2a)The Ethics of Eric Holder
By Ronald Kolb
When Attorney General Eric Holder recently testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about his role in the Fast and Furious operation, where 2,000 rifles were deliberately "walked" from the United States into Mexico, his answers at times seemed incredible and stretched the limits of believability.
A few months earlier, on May the third, Holder had testified before the House that he had only recently learned of the deadly and disastrous operation.
But a series of memos was uncovered by CBS News last October showing that during 2010, Holder had received at least five different notices concerning Fast and Furious from Michael Walther, the director of the National Drug Intelligence Center. He also received another memo from Assistant Attorney General (and long-time associate) Lanny Breuer.
But at the recent hearing, Holder stated three times that he had learned of Fast and Furious only earlier this year, after the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in Arizona. Five times Holder testified that he never saw any of the damning memos.
Senator John Cornyn from Texas queried Holder. "Those are memos with your name on it, addressed to you, referring to the Fast and Furious operation. Are you just saying you didn't read them?"
"I didn't receive them," answered Holder. "They are reviewed by my staff and a determination made as to what ought to be brought to my attention."
Cornyn then asked Holder if he had apologized to Brian Terry's family. The exchange that followed showed a coldness and lack of sensitivity that was truly stunning.
Holder: I have not apologized to them, but I certainly regret what happened.
Cornyn: Have you even talked to them?
Holder: I have not.
But Holder continued. "It is not fair, however, to assume that the mistakes that led to Fast and Furious directly led to the death of Agent Terry."
The day following the hearings, the Terry family responded to Holder with a terse and angry statement. "Mr. Holder needs to own Fast and Furious ... the Attorney General should accept responsibility immediately. It is without question, the right thing to do."
That very same day, in an apparent attempt at damage control, Holder responded with a letter addressed to Terry's parents which he immediately leaked to the press before both parents had the opportunity to read it.
None of these events should be surprising considering Mr. Holder's controversial history.
The two events that Eric Holder is most defined by before becoming attorney general were his key roles while in the Clinton administration in obtaining freedom for members of the Puerto Rican nationalist terrorist group known as the FALN (also known as the Armed Forces of National Liberation). Holder would later follow that by facilitating a pardon for fugitive billionaire Marc Rich.
In looking back at both of those controversies, the similarities to Fast and Furious now seem eerie. Holder had proclaimed sympathy for the FALN victims, but only after the terrorists had been released. He also proclaimed ignorance of both Mr. Rich and the case against him, even though the facts clearly suggest otherwise.
The FALN had conducted a deadly bombing campaign in numerous cities around America during the 1970s and '80s, setting off nearly 140 bombs that killed six and injured more than 80. Their most notorious act was the bombing of Fraunces Tavern in lower Manhattan in 1975, which killed four and injured 60 others, some of them seriously.
What slowed the FALN's reign of terror was the arrest and incarceration of nearly all of the group's members during the early eighties. When Eric Holder arrived as deputy attorney general in Janet Reno's Justice Department in 1997, he quickly took up the cause of freeing the FALN, and it became a near-obsession.
Holder met with advocates for the FALN's clemency at least nine times over the next two years, but he deliberately kept the victims of the deadly and unrepentant terrorist group out of the process. He also never spoke with any prosecutors or law enforcement who had been involved with the FALN's capture and prosecution.
In December of 1996, in the months before Holder's arrival, then-pardon attorney Margaret Love had issued a report recommending against clemency for the FALN and their closely allied group, the Macheteros (machete-wielders). The latter group was primarily based in Puerto Rico and had killed six there in a number of armed attacks.
Mr. Holder was sworn in as deputy attorney general on Friday, July 18, 1997. In Holder's first full working day the following Monday, pardon attorney staffer Susan Kuzma -- who had previously served in the Public Integrity office with Holder during the 1980s -- sent Love a memo questioning her 1996 report that had rejected clemency.
By November, Holder had fired Love and replaced her with Roger Adams, who was then a member of Holder's staff. That same month, Holder and Adams began meeting with advocates of clemency for the terrorist group.
Years later, in 2009 (and just prior to Mr. Holder's confirmation hearings before the Senate), the Los Angeles Times uncovered the fact that Holder ordered Adams to rewrite the Love report and change it to a recommendation favoring clemency.
Adams still had misgivings, so he sent a report to Holder that the terrorists should still be denied clemency. Undeterred, Holder ordered Adams to revise it. On August 31, 1998, Adams finally sent Holder the revised report, but he warned Holder's chief of staff, Kevin Ohlson, in a separate memo that if the report became public, it "would be disastrous."
In the report that Adams sent to Holder, he wrote that "I continue to have concerns," including about the fact that the victims had not been notified and that clemency could also undermine investigations and prosecutions of co-conspirators among the two allied terrorist groups.
Holder quickly came up with the idea of an "options memo," to be prepared and sent to Bill Clinton, that contained no specific recommendations. Acting on Ohlson's orders, Adams complied.
But Holder's efforts still languished until early 1999, when Hillary Clinton announced that she was running for an open Senate seat in New York.
Between March and July of 1999, White House staff with ties to Mrs. Clinton began frequent meetings with FALN advocates, and soon White House Counsel Charles Ruff became involved. In July, Mr. Holder was turned to for an assist, and the Holder/Adams "options memo" went to Ruff on the 8th.
And in a move that would remain hidden until 2009, Holder had sent Mr. Clinton his own personal recommendation for clemency. That memo was acknowledged by Holder, but Mr. Clinton (and now President Obama) refused to make it public.
Ruff also sent his own report to Clinton in early August, but the final catalyst occurred on August 9. According to the New Republic, Mrs. Clinton met with a handful of FALN supporters, including then-New York City councilman Jose Rivera, who gave Hillary a packet concerning clemency for the FALN, along with a letter asking her to "speak with her husband about granting executive clemency."
On the morning of August 11, 1999, Mr. Clinton announced the offer of clemency to twelve members of the FALN along with four Macheteros, and the news stunned both the victims of the FALN and many members of law enforcement.
To make the offer more palatable to the public, Eric Holder had concocted a plan to have the terrorists express remorse for their actions. But none of them would accept, and the situation went from bad to worse. As the days passed and criticism continued, pressure from the Clinton administration intensified for the terrorists to accept the offer.
Finally, on September 7 -- a full four weeks after the offer had first been made -- all but one member each from the FALN and the Macheteros decided to accept. Three days later, eleven FALN members were freed from numerous federal prisons around the country. Within days, both the House and Senate voted overwhelmingly to condemn the action.
Congressional hearings were called to investigate the events surrounding the pardons. On September 16, Clinton issued a blanket order of executive privilege in an attempt to fend them off.
On October 20, 1999, Holder appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. In both Holder's opening oral and written statements, he stated that "I wish to begin by extending my heartfelt sympathy to those victims and their families whose lives were tragically affected by the criminal conduct of the FALN."
Holder continued by saying that "[i]t is difficult to fully comprehend the extent of the pain and suffering these victims were forced to endure. ... I want the victims of FALN violence to know that our thoughts and prayers remain with them now and in the future."
However, Holder was forced to deal again with the victims during his testimony. Four different senators asked Holder why none of them had been contacted before clemency was offered.
The first exchange was with Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah.
Holder: Well, I think that generally we do a good job in getting victim input, notifying victims when pardons and clemency decisions are being made. I think we could have done a better job here. I think we could do a better job generally.
Hatch: You didn't do anything here. You didn't do anything here, according to the records I have.
Holder: Well, we...
Hatch: You didn't talk to the victims.
Holder was asked the same question by Senators Grassley (Iowa), Kyl (Arizona), and Ashcroft (Missouri) and gave the same response. What none of them knew at the time was that Holder had deliberately avoided contacting the victims and had met repeatedly with FALN advocates in his personal obsession to free them.
Whenever questions focused on his own role, Holder would either refer to executive privilege -- which he did 40 times -- or shift the blame for the clemency offer to Mr. Clinton -- which he did 15 times.
The most egregious and bizarre claims of executive privilege came in exchanges with Senator -- and Judiciary Chairman -- Orrin Hatch. The 1996 report from Margaret Love that had recommended against clemency was accidentally released to the committee, and
Hatch asked Holder to comment on it.
Holder: The letter should not have been produced. It seems to me that the information contained in the letter is clearly within the bounds of executive privilege.
Hatch: Seriously?
Holder: Excuse me?
Hatch: Seriously, you can't really believe that.
Holder: Oh, absolutely.
Hatch: Well, we have a copy of the letter. And you are aware that she recommended against clemency.
Holder: I really would not comment on what recommendations were made by the pardon attorney. As I said, I think that falls well within the bounds of executive privilege.
Later, Hatch asked Holder about the 1999 report that he and Roger Adams prepared that effectively replaced the 1996 Love report that recommended against clemency.
Hatch: Did the second report contain a recommendation of whether the president should or should not grant clemency?
Holder: Mr. Chairman, with respect to those questions, it seems to me the answers to those questions are prohibited by the assertation of privilege of the...
Hatch: How? Tell me. I mean, where in the law do you find that?
The befuddled senator never received an answer.
Hatch also asked if there had been any attempt to obtain information from those offered clemency concerning some of their co-conspirators who remained at large.
FALN bomb-maker William Morales was -- and still is -- hiding in Cuba. Macheteros Victor Gerena and Filiberto Ojeda-Rios were on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list (Gerena has now been on that list for a record 27 years, and Rios was killed in an FBI shootout in 2005).
Holder replied that "to my knowledge[,] those requests were not placed."
Hatch: You're a former prosecutor. I mean, don't you want to get to the bottom of these things?
Holder: Sure.
Hatch: Well, then, why weren't those questions asked?
Holder: Because it seems to me you're talking about a group of people who did not recognize the right of the government to even--
Hatch: What's that got to do with it?
Holder tried to shift the blame to Clinton. "Well, as I said, the power of the president is absolute in these areas...again, it is for the president to decide."
Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama then quoted from a report from Janet Reno's office written the previous month that was leaked just prior to Holder's testimony. It mentioned the threat of increased violence from the "impending release from prison" of members of Puerto Rican terrorist groups.
Holder answered that "I think that given the terms under which these folks were released, which is where they had to indicate that they renounced violence, makes the report language you cited, it seems to me, a little inapplicable."
On October 21, at a bizarre press conference the day following the hearing, Holder dug himself in deeper. "What I was trying to tell the Committee yesterday was that the Attorney General's report clearly did not refer to these people [the FALN], given the fact that they have, as a condition of release, renounced violence."
One day later, Jack Quinn -- the influential former White House counsel for Bill Clinton as well as the former chief of staff for Al Gore -- met with Deputy Attorney General Holder. Quinn was now the legal representative for fugitive billionaire Marc Rich.
A look back at Holder's actions during the Rich pardon gives an even fuller insight into the dubious and corrupt political opportunist that he was then and still is today.
In September of 1983, commodities trader and financier Marc Rich and his business partner Pincus Green were the targets of a 51-count indictment that included charges of evading $48 million in taxes, trading oil with Iran while Iran was under a U.S. embargo, and additional charges of racketeering and fraud. It was the largest tax fraud case in U.S. history.
At the time of the indictment, Rich and Green had already fled to Switzerland and were living in luxury. Extra charges were added in March of 1984, making it a 65-count indictment.
By 1999, when Rich's attorney, Jack Quinn, approached Eric Holder for help, Mr. Rich was listed on the Interagency International Fugitive List as WANTED by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Customs Service, and the U.S. Marshal Service.
Rich was also listed on the Justice Department's website as an international fugitive. The posting further noted that the U.S. "will pay a reward for information that leads to the arrest of Marc David Rich." Rich was also posted on Interpol's "Red Alert" list.
Quinn first tried to use a more than willing Holder to obtain a deal from prosecutors for his client, but when that scheme failed in early 2000, Quinn would return to Holder later that same year for help -- this time in attempting to obtain a pardon. Quinn would later state -- and Holder eventually admit -- that he had dangled the attorney general post before Holder in a potential Gore administration.
Holder would claim over the coming years that he was not familiar with who Marc Rich was -- and then gain only a passing familiarity with his case -- even after discussing Rich's case with Quinn at least nine times between October 1999 and January 2001.
In 1976, Holder had first arrived in Washington as a member of the newly formed Public Integrity Section at the Department of Justice. He departed that office in 1988.
Between October 18, 1982 and July 10, 1984, the Washington Post ran five front-page stories focusing on Marc Rich. One of three stories from 1983 focused on the infamous "steamer trunk affair" from that August, where Rich had unsuccessfully attempted to transport subpoenaed documents to Switzerland that were recovered at the last moment from a Swissair flight on the runway at Kennedy airport (located in Holder's hometown of Queens, New York).
The following month, another front-page story from the Post focused on the indictment of Rich, correctly calling it "the largest tax-evasion indictment in U.S. history." The newspaper ran at least 16 other stories that focused on Rich between 1983 and 1989, and five of those stories were posted on the front page of the Business section.
It would also be discovered (and reported by National Review's Andy McCarthy in 2009, just prior to Holder's planned confirmation vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee) that Holder as U.S. attorney in Washington in 1995 had settled a multimillion-dollar fraud case between the Treasury Department and Mr. Rich.
And in February of 2000, soon after Quinn's and Holder's plan to cut a deal for Rich with New York prosecutors fell through, Quinn sent Holder a memo of talking points entitled "Why DOJ (Justice Department) Should Review the Marc Rich Indictment."
Before prosecutors totally rejected a deal for Mr. Rich, Holder and Quinn stayed in constant touch after their initial contact in the fall of 1999. According to notes that Quinn kept of a phone call from Holder on November 8, Quinn quoted Holder as saying that he would "do what he can" and that it was "ridiculous" that prosecutors in New York were refusing to even discuss the case with Rich's attorneys.
Quinn's notes then included Holder's suggestion to "send letter to Mary Jo" (White -- who was then the prosecutor), and to "cc" a copy back to him. When Holder received his copy of the letter, he replied to Quinn that "we'll call her and say she should do it."
The notes added that Holder had advised Quinn to be "reasonable and conciliatory" when sending the letter. Incredibly, the deputy attorney general was now giving advice to assist the biggest tax evader in history in having his charges dismissed.
Quinn's letter was sent to White on December 1, and over the next two months before White's office replied, Holder and Quinn still remained in contact. After one conversation, Quinn noted that Holder had "spoke[n] to MJ" White, and "she didn't sound like her guard was up." After a further conversation with Holder, Quinn asked, "Deal?" Holder replied, "Yeah, think so. We're all sympathetic. Equities are on your side."
But the deal was flatly rejected in early February, and by mid-March of 2000, Quinn and the rest of Rich's legal team began making plans to obtain a presidential pardon for their fugitive client. Quinn returned to Holder for help that November after the election.
Meanwhile, the Rich legal team moved on what Quinn called the "GOI" (government of Israel) front. Rich began donating what would total 200 million dollars to Jewish and Israeli foundations over the next months. And according to reports in the Israeli press, at least 120 thousand dollars of Rich's money ended up in then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak's campaign. Barak would come to play an important role in the coming months.
Quinn touched base again with Holder on November 17 and sent an e-mail to a colleague the following day. Quinn wrote that he "spoke to him [Holder] last evening. he says go straight to wh [White House]. also says timing is good."
On the 21st, Quinn met with Holder personally and discussed the pardon petition (Holder later said he couldn't remember the meeting). Holder told Quinn that he didn't need a copy of the petition, and to just have White House Counsel Beth Nolan "call him."
What Holder was suggesting was to bypass Pardon Attorney Roger Adams, who would have been obliged to contact the prosecutors. Holder already knew that the prosecutors would vehemently object.
On December 11, Quinn gave the pardon petition to Nolan and suggested that she contact Holder for his input.
That same day, Ehud Barak called Clinton and (according to transcripts prepared by the National Security staff), at the end of the 20-minute call, Barak brought up Rich, and noted that he had made many "philanthropic contributions." Barak hoped that Clinton would "consider" the case.
On January 6, Beth Nolan contacted Holder for his input on the pardons for both Rich and his business partner Pincus Green (whom Quinn was also representing). Holder told her that his position was "neutral' in pardoning the two fugitives.
On January 8, Ehud Barak called Clinton again. And just like the first call, Rich came up at the end:
Clinton: It's best we not say much about that.
Barak: Okay. I understand. I'm not mentioned it in any place.
Clinton: I understand.
On January 10, Quinn sent Holder a copy of a letter that he had sent Clinton five days earlier where he stated that "I believe in this case with all my heart."
Quinn added a cover letter for Holder. "Dear Eric: I hope you can say that you agree with this letter. Your saying positive things can make this happen. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Jack Quinn."
Quinn sent the letter to Holder, but since it dealt with pardons, it went instead to Roger Adams (where a petition should actually have gone months earlier). Adams's staff realized that it was meant for Holder and forwarded a copy to him, where it arrived on the 17th. Holder's staff would later say that he received it, but Holder denied that he ever did.
Adams finally saw a copy on the 19th, and he drafted a short response saying that Rich and Green should request petition forms. Adams decided to hold the response until Monday the 22nd, thinking that Clinton would have no time to pardon them before leaving office.
The rest of the events over the next two days would prove to be both stunning and disheartening.
At 2:47 p.m., Clinton called Ehud Barak, and this time Clinton brought up Rich:
Clinton: I'm trying to do something on clemency for Rich, but it is very difficult.
Barak: Might it move forward?
Clinton: I'm working on it, but I'm not sure...here's the problem with Rich; there's almost no precedent in American history. There's nothing illegal about it but there's no precedent...I'm working on it."
At 6:30 p.m., Quinn called Holder and told him that the Rich pardon was under serious consideration at the White House, and that they would soon be contacting him for his input.
Quinn mentioned Ehud Barak's support for a pardon, and his notes show that Holder had "no personal prob," and that his personal feeling was "not strongly against it," but that the prosecutors would "howl."
Quinn quickly called Nolan's White House Counsel's office and told them that Holder was "neutral, leaning favorable." Nolan promptly called Holder back at 6:38. Holder then repeated that he was now "neutral, leaning favorable" and had heard that Ehud Barak was now "interested."
After Holder hung up, Nolan informed the staff that Holder now supported a pardon -- to the surprise of the others. Stunned staff member Eric Angel said, "Why the f--- would he say that?"
At 7:00 p.m., Nolan and Angel were joined by White House staffers Bruce Lindsey, Meredith Cabe, and others for a staff meeting with Clinton, and the discussion focused on pardons -- the last being for Marc Rich.
Clinton noted that Ehud Barak had called him and raised the issue (even though it was Clinton who had called and raised the issue). The staff expressed strong opposition, but then Nolan dropped a bomb. She said that Holder was "leaning toward" a pardon.
When the meeting ended, no one was sure what Clinton would do. He then returned a call from Jack Quinn, and he agreed with Quinn's suggestion that the case against Rich was a civil and not a criminal one.
Clinton then informed Nolan and Lindsey that he was going to issue pardons, and to contact the Pardon Attorney office. Just past midnight, Cabe reached Roger Adams, and then faxed him a list of those being pardoned. Adams noted Rich and Green on the list, but no information was included.
Nolan's office then faxed the pardon petition to Adams, and he realized that Rich and Green were fugitives. At that point, the FBI faxed the required NCIC check to Adams. It showed the indictment that was still pending, and added that the two were wanted for arms trading.
Adams faxed a summary to the White House but was still worried that pardons would be issued. At 1:00 a.m. he contacted the Justice Department Command Center in an attempt to track down Holder.
Adams reached Holder at his home, and he informed him that Clinton was seriously considering pardons for the two fugitives. Holder told Adams that he was aware of that fact, and the conversation abruptly ended.
Holder would tell Congress -- and later the Washington Post --that he had been distracted by other issues that night. On other occasions, he would tell Congress that after he had given his recommendation hours earlier, he thought the pardons would still not be issued.
But Holder would also testify that when he received the warning call from Adams, he thought that Clinton had already made up his mind.
Even at that point, there was still one last chance to prevent the pardons. Nolan's staff was concerned about the the NCIC listing of arms trading, and at 2:00 a.m., an angry Jack Quinn assured them that there was nothing else.
At 2:30 a.m., Nolan called Clinton and expressed her concerns, saying that all they had was Quinn's assurance. Clinton's response was to "take Jack's word." And with that, Marc Rich and his legal team -- with a huge assist from Eric Holder -- finally achieved their goal.
But Holder's abysmal behavior wasn't finished. By January 22, the issue of the Rich pardon had fully erupted (and would continue for days). It was in that context when Quinn spoke to Holder that day. After Janet Reno's departure two days earlier (and with John Ashcroft's confirmation still days away), Holder was now acting attorney general.
Quinn again took notes, which he e-mailed to other members of the team late that afternoon. "Just spoke to Holder. Said I did a very good job and that he thinks we [should] be better about getting the merits of the case out publicly." Holder added that the press should know about the "support of [Ehud] Barak."
Holder then advised Quinn that he needed to have travel restrictions and arrest warrants lifted for Rich and Green, and to contact Interpol about Clinton's decision.
Then, unbelievably, Holder advised Quinn to go to the Federal Courthouse in Manhattan and move to have the indictment dismissed -- in case the prosecutors had not.
By early February, Holder was under severe criticism. Crossing paths with reporters, Holder said that "I'll be talking about that later."
On February 6, Ehud Barak lost reelection as prime minister of Israel in an unprecedented landslide to Ariel Sharon. Two days later, Holder appeared before the House Government Reform committee.
In his eight-minute opening statement (and with Quinn sitting right beside him), he said that "efforts to portray me as intimately involved or overly interested in this matter are simply at odds with the facts ... and it does not now stick in my memory."
He added that when he was first approached by Jack Quinn, "Mr. Rich's name was unfamiliar to me." He added that "consequently, I gained only a passing familiarity with the underlying facts of the Rich case."
On the meeting between him and Quinn the previous November 21 about a potential pardon, Holder said that "I have no memory of that conversation, but do not question Mr. Quinn's assertion."
About the conversation with Quinn after the pardon on January 22, Holder said that "[a]t no time did I congratulate Mr. Quinn about his efforts. If I said anything to him about his having done a good job, it was merely a polite acknowledgment of the obvious[.]"
After admitting that he'd had "conversations" with Jack Quinn about becoming attorney general under Gore, Holder told Committee Chairman Dan Burton from Indiana that "[m]y actions in in this matter were in no way affected by my desire to become Attorney General of the United States, or any desires I had to influence or seek to curry favor with anybody."
Congressman Paul Kanjorski told Holder that "I do find some of these positions almost incredible from the standpoint -- when you first heard the name Rich from Mr. Quinn that triggered no idea who that was?
Holder: I did not know.
Kanjorski: And you didn't assign somebody to find out? This was unusual. You've never been approached by Mr. Quinn in regard to a pardon before, have you?
Holder: That's correct.
Later Kanjorski asked, "Did you know whether he was a fugitive?"
Holder: I'm sorry, did I know what?
Kanjorski: Did you know whether he was a fugitive or not?
Holder: Yes.
Kanjorski: OK. That's a rare classification for someone seeking a pardon.
Moments later, Holder testified that, "I never really thought that this case was going to move, using your term, given the fact that he was a fugitive ... if I'd known, obviously, that it was going to turn out this way, I mean, I would have done things differently."
Later there was this exchange with Bob Barr from Georgia:
Barr: Did the Southern District of New York oppose the pardon?
Holder: You mean before the--well, they never weighed in on the pardon. They were never contacted.
Barr: So they didn't even know that a pardon request had been submitted?
Holder: That's correct.
Barr: How about the FBI?
Holder: Did not weigh in.
Barr: NSA?
Holder: No.
Barr: CIA?
Holder: No.
Barr: State?
Holder: No. Again, there were no contacts between the Justice Department and these agencies.
Holder concluded his testimony before the House by telling the reform committee's chief counsel, James Wilson, the following about his determination on the Rich pardon:
I mean, when I say I'm neutral but leaning toward, neutral means I'm kind of where I was before, don't have the ability to make that determination, if there is a foreign policy benefit then that, kind of, moves me. I think, you know, as I said, I tried to be careful in relaying that to her (Beth Nolan) so that it would not be misinterpreted.
Still Holder continued. "Perhaps I didn't do as good a job with her -- or with you. It seems kind of clear to me, but I guess I haven't explained it as well as I might."
Six days later, on February 14, 2001, Holder appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
This time, though, Pardon Attorney Roger Adams was seated next to him. In Adam's opening statement, he spoke about the call he made to Holder on the early morning of January 20 after learning that Rich and Green were fugitives.
Adams stated that he "immediately contacted Deputy Attorney General Holder at home, through the Justice Department Command Center, to alert him that the president was considering granting pardons to two men. Mr. Holder indicated to me that he was aware of the pending clemency requests of Rich and Green."
Holder then spoke about the events of the 19th and 20th, saying that he was "extremely busy that day and particularly that night." He assumed that the pardon request went to the Justice Department for review. He assumed that staff contacts were going on between his office, the pardon attorney's office, and the White House.
He did not think he was the only person in the Justice Department aware of the pardon. He added that by the time he got the warning call from Adams on the morning of the 20th, "I thought that a decision had been made, that the president had rendered a decision, had made up his mind...so I took no action at that point."
Holder told Ohio Senator Mike Dewine that "I did not think, given the fact that he was a fugitive, that this ever was a matter likely to be successfully concluded from Mr. Rich's perspective." Holder then told Jon Kyl from Arizona that "my interaction with the White House I did not view as a recommendation," but there were "certain things I would have done differently."
In March of 2002, the House Government Reform Committee issued their final report on the Clinton pardons. In quoting from the report, the New York Times noted that Holder was a "willing participant in the plan to keep the Justice Department from knowing about and and opposing a pardon" for Rich.
The article noted that Holder admitted discussing becoming attorney general in a Gore administration with Jack Quinn, and that Holder's conduct was "unconscionable." The House report itself noted that Holder's actions were "pivotal" and had a "critical impact."
The report's devastating conclusion was that Holder had "abdicated his responsibilities" as deputy attorney general.
Just two years later, at a Washington, D.C. dinner party in the fall of 2004, Holder met a newly elected senator from Illinois named Barack Obama, and the two bonded immediately.
In 2006, Holder contributed $2,000 to Senator Obama's Hopefund PAC. Also that year, Holder donated to Senator Pat Leahy's PAC -- another man who would help control Holder's destiny. In 2007, Holder donated $2,300 (the maximum) to both Obama's primary and general election campaigns.
That August, Holder was mentioned in the Chicago Tribune as a potential attorney general in an Obama administration. In June of 2008, the American Lawyer wrote that Holder was "playing a variety of positions" for Team Obama.
Obama became the presumptive nominee on June 3, and the following day he named Mr. Holder to help choose his running mate. But later that evening, the AP posted a story about Holder's ties to the Rich pardon. At a press conference six days later, Obama sidestepped questions about Holder's past. That August, Joe Biden was chosen as the running mate.
On November 18, two weeks after the election, Holder's name was leaked to the press that he would soon be nominated for Attorney General. An AP story noted that in the prior week, members of Obama's team had polled the incoming Senate in an attempt to nail down the post that Holder had so long coveted.
On December 1, Obama made it official, saying that Holder had the "talent and commitment" to succeed as attorney general and would "protect the people and uphold the public trust."
In late December, the Boston Globe reported that members of the Obama transition team had been coaching Holder to "prepare" him for what would likely be tough questioning for his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
On January 9, the Los Angeles Times reported in a front-page story about Holder's years-long obsession with freeing the FALN. On January 13 -- and two days prior to the hearings -- Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy told the Legal Times that Holder displayed "independent judgment" in helping to facilitate clemency for the FALN, and that debating the issue was only a "rehash."
The hearings began on the bitterly cold morning of January 15, 2009, and Holder addressed terrorism midway through his opening statement: "I will work to strengthen the activities of the Federal government to protect the American people from terrorism. Nothing will be more important."
Soon, though, Holder was forced to address the FALN issue. He told Senator Sessions from Alabama that what Bill Clinton had done was "reasonable."
Then Senator Cornyn from Texas got to the heart of the matter:
Cornyn: Did you recommend clemency for the FALN terrorists to President Clinton?
Holder: Yes.
Cornyn: Was it a mistake?
Holder: No, I don't think it was a mistake.
Holder then told Cornyn that "I think the decision was made in a pre-9/11 context."
But Holder neglected to mention that in the years preceding the clemencies were the attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993, killing six, and the twin African embassy bombings in 1998, killing more than 200.
Holder then admitted to Senator Coburn from Oklahoma about freeing the FALN terrorists that:
You had two United States attorneys who weighed against it, law enforcement was against it. There are obviously the feelings the victims had...I took those into account and balanced that against the people advocating for it.
But Holder had contacted neither law enforcement nor the victims.
Senator Grassley began his questioning after the lunch recess. The hearing room was darkened, and the now-infamous FBI surveillance tape showing now-freed FALN members Edwin Cortez and Alejandrina Torres constructing bombs was shown.
When the lights went back up, Holder told Grassley that "I've not seen that video before."
Moments later, he changed his story, telling Grassley that "I think I've seen it in some news accounts in the recent past, like, in the last week or so, something like that."
Holder then told Grassley that he wasn't aware of any threats by the FALN towards Judge Thomas McMillen at their sentencing in Chicago in 1981. For example, FALN member Carmen Valentine told McMillen that "you are lucky we cannot take you right now."
Holder then told Grassley that "I'm not sure I ever described them as non-violent...it's a difference between -- let's hypothetically say -- murder and attempted murder."
Then Holder told Senator Sessions that "I looked into the situation, took into account the fact that these people were not directly involved in incidents that led to death or -- or injuries...it seemed to me that the clemency grant given was appropriate."
What Holder failed to mention was that most of the FALN members who received pardons were arrested in April 1980 near Chicago, and that 29 bombings had earlier been carried out in the Chicago area between 1975 and 1979. Nine people had been injured, some of them seriously.
When the subject moved to the Marc Rich pardon, Holder's testimony was a tour de force of evasive and misleading statements, and his memory often failed him.
Holder told Senator Specter from Pennsylvania that he didn't remember telling Jack Quinn to avoid the Justice Department and go straight to the White House, yet moments later said that "I never told Quinn to go straight to the White House."
Holder told Senator Grassley that he was not familiar with the Rich case and that he "assumed" that the prosecutors and Justice Department were involved. He further said that he wasn't "particularly sympathetic" to the case, that he didn't do "anything affirmatively to make it happen, and that "I should have made sure that I was better informed ... about the history of Mr. Rich."
About the 1 a.m. warning call on Jan. 20 from Roger Adams alerting Holder of the impending Rich pardon: "I thought we were dealing with a fait accompli, that the president had already made up his mind."
Then Holder went through a series of pointed questions from Grassley, and his memory seemed to fail. Grassley asked if Holder remembered saying that there would be "a howl" from the prosecutors.
Holder: At this point, Senator, I mean, we're talking about something that happened, what, 2001? So, that's eight years ago, I don't remember that."
But things for Holder weren't quite over yet. On January 21, 2009 -- the first full day of the Obama administration, and only minutes before the full committee was scheduled to vote on Holder -- Andy McCarthy of National Review published an article about the Clarendon Ltd. settlement from 1995 involving Marc Rich and Eric Holder.
That article, along with the fears of some senators that Holder may prosecute Bush administration officials over terrorist policy, caused a one-week delay in the vote.
During the hearings, Specter asked Holder if he had been aware of what kind of record Marc Rich had.
"No, I was not," replied Holder. "I did not acquaint myself with his record. I knew that the matter involved -- it was a tax fraud case; it was a substantial tax fraud case."
That case was USA vs. Clarendon Ltd. The company was one that Rich owned 49% of, and one of the commodities it traded in was metals -- copper, nickel, and zinc.
Between 1988 and 1991, the company had obtained 22 contacts totaling 45 million dollars to supply coinage metal to the U.S. Mint. But they had fraudulently withheld Rich's name (who was then a fugitive) from the contracts.
The contracts ceased, and the government sued, and the case was handled by the U.S. attorney's office in Washington. Mr. Holder arrived as the U. S. attorney there in October of 1993, and the case was settled between Holder's office and Mr. Rich in April 1995. Rich agreed to pay the government 1.2 million dollars, and he even swore out an affidavit and sent it to Washington from Switzerland.
The problem for Holder was that he has repeatedly said that he was unfamiliar with both Marc Rich and the case against him, even though the Clarendon case, along with a mountain of other evidence, shows otherwise.
He also claimed -- just like he would later do during Fast and Furious -- that his staff had kept him in the dark. In the Clarendon case, it involved a multimillion-dollar fraud and a settlement with a fugitive. In Fast and Furious, it involves 2,000 guns running untracked into Mexico, resulting in murder and violence in the present and into the future.
But in 2009, as expected, Mr. Holder was confirmed, even though half the Republicans refused to fall in line and accept the inevitable.
Now, Mr. Holder is scheduled to appear before the House Judiciary Committee on December 8 to discuss the deadly gunrunning scandal, and if past is prologue, then the Committee should know what to expect.
Looking back in history at the list of former attorneys general, two from the recent past seem to stand out. Robert F. Kennedy chose -- at some personal risk -- to take on not only organized crime, but the corrupt Teamsters union. John Mitchell became entangled in Richard Nixon's Watergate scandal and was convicted of multiple felonies.
It's quite obvious which category Mr. Holder belongs in. Scandal seems to follow him wherever he goes, and now, either through incompetence or malfeasance, the road has led to Fast and Furious.
Every day that Mr. Holder now remains attorney general further diminishes the office, and the Justice Department's reputation as well
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)The Righteous Israeli
By Eileen F. Toplansky
Since beginning to write for the American Thinker, I have "met" some incredible people via e-mail. I was recently sent this letter that reflects the poignant thoughts of an Israeli citizen-soldier who must battle the physical toll of incessant war, as well as the ongoing assault by an indifferent world that cries crocodile tears, all the while ignoring genuine humanitarian problems. Marilyn and Josh Adler shared this letter from their son Aron and asked that it be passed on "for the world to see."
My name is Aron Adler.
I am 25 years old, was born in Brooklyn NY, and raised in Efrat, Israel. Though very busy, I don't view my life as unusual. Most of the time, I am just another Israeli citizen. During the day I work as a paramedic in Magen David Adom, Israel's national EMS service. At night, I'm in my first year of law school. I got married this October and am starting a new chapter of life together with my wonderful wife Shulamit.
Fifteen to twenty days out of every year, I'm called up to the Israeli army to do my reserve duty. I serve as a paramedic in an IDF paratrooper unit. My squad is made up of others like me; people living normal lives who step up to serve whenever responsibility calls. The oldest in my squad is 58, a father of four girls and grandfather of two; there are two bankers, one engineer, a holistic healer, and my 24 year old commander who is still trying to figure out what to do with his life. Most of the year we are just normal people living our lives, but for 15-20 days each year we are soldiers on the front lines preparing for a war that we hope we never have to fight.
This year, our reserve unit was stationed on the border between Israel, Egypt and the Gaza Strip in an area called "Kerem Shalom." Above and beyond the "typical" things for which we train - war, terrorism, border infiltration, etc., - this year we were confronted by a new challenge. Several years ago, a trend started of African refugees crossing the Egyptian border from Sinai into Israel to seek asylum from the atrocities in Darfur.
What started out as a small number of men, women and children fleeing from the machetes of the Janjaweed and violent fundamentalists to seek a better life elsewhere, turned into an organized industry of human trafficking. In return for huge sums of money, sometimes entire life savings paid to Bedouin "guides," these refugees are promised to be transported from Sudan, Eritrea, and other African countries through Egypt and the Sinai desert, into the safe haven of Israel.
We increasingly hear horror stories of the atrocities these refugees suffer on their way to freedom. They are subject to, and victims of extortion, rape, murder, and even organ theft, their bodies left to rot in the desert. Then, if lucky, after surviving this gruesome experience whose prize is freedom, when only a barbed wire fence separates them from Israel and their goal, they must go through the final death run and try to evade the bullets of the Egyptian soldiers stationed along the border. Egypt's soldiers are ordered to shoot to kill anyone trying to cross the border OUT of Egypt and into Israel. It's an almost nightly event.
For those who finally get across the border, the first people they encounter are Israeli soldiers, people like me and those in my unit, who are tasked with a primary mission of defending the lives of the Israeli people. On one side of the border soldiers shoot to kill. On the other side, they know they will be treated with more respect than in any of the countries they crossed to get to this point.
The region where it all happens is highly sensitive and risky from a security point of view, an area stricken with terror at every turn. It's just a few miles south of the place where Gilad Shalit was kidnapped. And yet the Israeli soldiers who are confronted with these refugees do it not with rifles aimed at them, but with a helping hand and an open heart. The refugees are taken to a nearby IDF base, given clean clothes, a hot drink, food and medical attention. They are finally safe.
Even though I live in Israel and am aware through media reports of the events that take place on the Egyptian border, I never understood the intensity and complexity of the scenario until I experienced it myself.
In the course of the past few nights, I have witnessed much. At 9:00 p.m. last night, the first reports came in of gunfire heard from the Egyptian border. Minutes later, IDF scouts spotted small groups of people trying to get across the fence. In the period of about one hour, we picked up 13 men - cold, barefoot, dehydrated - some wearing nothing except underpants. Their bodies were covered with lacerations and other wounds. We gathered them in a room, gave them blankets, tea and treated their wounds. I don't speak a word of their language, but the look on their faces said it all and reminded me once again why I am so proud to be a Jew and an Israeli. Sadly, it was later determined that the gunshots we heard were deadly, killing three others fleeing for their lives.
During the 350 days a year when I am not on active duty, when I am just another man trying to get by, the people tasked with doing this amazing job, this amazing deed, the people witnessing these events, are mostly young Israeli soldiers just out of high school, serving their compulsory time in the IDF, some only 18 years old.
The refugees flooding into Israel are a heavy burden on our small country. More than 100,000 refugees have fled this way, and hundreds more cross the border every month. The social, economic, and humanitarian issues created by this influx of refugees are immense.
There are serious security consequences for Israel as well. This influx of African refugees poses a crisis for Israel. Israel has yet to come up with the solutions required to deal with this crisis effectively, balancing its' sensitive social, economic, and security issues, at the same time striving to care for the refugees.
I don't have the answers to these complex problems which desperately need to be resolved. I'm not writing these words with the intention of taking a political position or a tactical stand on the issue.
I am writing to tell you and the entire world what's really happening down here on the Egyptian/Israeli border. And to tell you that despite all the serious problems created by this national crisis, these refugees have no reason to fear us. Because they know, as the entire world needs to know, that Israel has not shut its eyes to their suffering and pain. Israel has not looked the other way. The State of Israel has put politics aside to take the ethical and humane path as it has so often done before, in every instance of human suffering and natural disasters around the globe. We Jews know only too well about suffering and pain. The Jewish people have been there. We have been the refugees and the persecuted so many times, over thousands of years, all over the world.
Today, when African refugees flood our borders in search of freedom and better lives, and some for fear of their lives, it is particularly noteworthy how Israel deals with them, despite the enormous strain it puts on our country on so many levels. Our young and thriving Jewish people and country, built from the ashes of the Holocaust, do not turn their backs on humanity. Though I already knew that, this week I once again experienced it firsthand. I am overwhelmed with emotion and immensely proud to be a member of this nation.
With love of Israel,
Aron Adler writing from the Israel/Gaza/Egyptian border.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) Solyndra, Oil Pipeline Show Obama’s ‘Misguided’ Priorities
The Obama administration’s handling of two recent controversies — solar panel maker Solyndra and the Keystone XL pipeline — illustrates a misguided approach to energy-related issues, according to an energy expert.
The administration has announced that it will delay for a year a final decision on construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring much-needed oil from Canada to Texas and the Gulf of Mexico.
At the same time, the administration is under fire for using its influence to help Solyndra obtain a $529 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy. The company declared bankruptcy and folded in September.
“Even a cursory look at the two deals shows that, once again, the Obama administration’s energy priorities are — how to put this charitably? — misguided,” writes Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of the book “Power Hungry: The Myths of ‘Green’ Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future.”
In an article appearing in National Review Online, Bryce writes that unlike Solyndra, the $13 billion Keystone project does not depend on federal loan guarantees or tax credits from the federal government, and it would improve America’s access to a secure flow of oil.
The pipeline would reportedly create some 13,000 construction jobs in the United States, and indirectly create 7,000 manufacturing jobs — while Solyndra axed 1,100 workers when it went bankrupt.
The pipeline would supply the U.S. with 700,000 barrels of oil each day, enough to generate 380,000 megawatt-hours of electricity daily, according to Bryce.
Meanwhile, all the solar panels in the country, plus all the wind turbines, last year produced 260,000 million megawatt-hours per day.
“Put another way, the Keystone XL pipeline by itself, if it ever gets federal approval — and assuming, of course, that the Canadians don’t decide to build a pipeline to the coast and ship their oil to China or elsewhere — would have provided about 46 percent more energy to the U.S. economy than all the solar panels and wind turbines in the country did in 2010,” Bryce points out.
The Obama administration and its supporters assert that the future belongs to renewables and to companies like Solyndra, Bryce says, adding: “By delaying the Keystone XL, Obama has shown that he’s more interested in political maneuvering than in providing cheap, abundant, reliable energy to U.S. consumers.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) Iran says downed US drone; threatens response 'outside our borders'
Military source says RQ-170 American drone shot down 'with minimum damage' in eastern Iran. 'We'll respond to airspace violations outside our borders,' Tehran threatens
Reuters
Iran's military said on Sunday it had shot down a US reconnaissance drone aircraft in eastern Iran, a military source told state television.
"Iran's military has downed an intruding RQ-170 American drone in eastern Iran," Iran's Arabic-language Al Alam state television network quoted the unnamed source as saying.
"The spy drone, which has been downed with little damage, was seized by the Iranian armed forces."
The source said Iran's response to the downed US drone's violation of its airspace will not be limited to the country's borders.
"The Iranian military's response to the American spy drone's violation of our airspace will not be limited to Iran's borders any more," Iran's Arabic language Al Alam television quoted the military source as saying, without giving details.
Iran said in July it had shot down an unmanned US spy plane over the holy city of Qom, near its Fordu nuclear site.
Iran shot down the drone at a time when it is trying to contain foreign reaction to the storming of the British embassy in Tehran on Tuesday, shortly after London announced that it would impose sanctions on Iran's central bank in connection with Iran's controversial nuclear enrichment program.
Britain evacuated its diplomatic staff from Iran and expelled Iranian diplomats in London in retaliation, and several other EU members recalled their ambassadors from Tehran.
The attack dragged Iran's relations with Europe to a long-time low.
Washington and EU countries have been discussing measures to restrict Iran's oil exports since the United Nations nuclear watchdog issued a report in November with what it said was evidence that Tehran had worked on designing an atom bomb.
Iran says its nuclear program is entirely peaceful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)Detroit on the Brink
From Walter Russell Mead's Blog
The fate of Detroit could be decided this month. Long suffering Detroit could run out of cash completely by spring, and has an unresolved $200 million hole in its budget through June. Under Michigan law, when the city’s bonds drop below the BBB level, the governor can appoint an emergency manager with broad powers to put the city back in fiscal shape, including the power to annul existing union contracts. The mayor and city officials say they can manage things on their own; the state treasurer says the city is failing its legal obligations and has announced a financial review that could be completed by Christmas. Under agreements Detroit signed with banks when negotiating an earlier loan package, the city could face $400 million in penalties if the state takes control.
That’s not the only problem: if the review determines that the city is broke, white Republican officials could end up making decisions that change the fate of a predominantly African American city — imposing cuts in employment, pay, benefits and services that will affect almost everyone who lives in Detroit.
Detroit Free Press columnist Jeff Gerritt lays out what the governor will face if the takeover goes forward:
“Plantation” is a word he’ll hear a lot — in fact, Councilman Kwame Kenyatta already invoked it to describe what would happen if the state took control of the city’s finances in an effort to keep it from running out of money by spring…
Nothing happens in this region outside the context of race. Our often-painful history is the oxygen we breathe, even when we choke on it. We’re all finding it a little hard to breathe just now.
This is what happens when politicians and stakeholders bicker while debt problems mount, and Detroit is far from the only place that could lose its autonomy to outsiders. It is no more than what Italy, Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Spain have faced in recent months, and unless the United States gets its fiscal act together, the time could come when the whole country could understand what Detroit is now going through.
6a)The Spirit of Enterprise
By DAVID BROOKS
Why are nations like Germany and the U.S. rich? It's not primarily because
they possess natural resources - many nations have those. It's primarily
because of habits, values and social capital.
It's because many people in these countries, as Arthur Brooks of the
American Enterprise Institute has note, believe in a simple moral formula: effort shouldlead to reward as often as possible.
People who work hard and play by the rules should have a fair shot at
prosperity. Money should go to people on the basis of merit and enterprise.
Self-control should be rewarded while laziness and self-indulgence should
not. Community institutions should nurture responsibility and fairness.
This ethos is not an immutable genetic property, which can blithely be taken
for granted. It's a precious social construct, which can be undermined and
degraded.
Right now, this ethos is being undermined from all directions. People see
lobbyists diverting money on the basis of connections; they see traders
making millions off of short-term manipulations; they see governments
stealing money from future generations to reward current voters.
The result is a crisis of legitimacy. The game is rigged. Social trust
shrivels. Effort is no longer worth it. The prosperity machine winds down.
Yet the assault on these values continues, especially in Europe.
Over the past few decades, several European nations, like Germany and the
Netherlands, have played by the rules and practiced good governance. They
have lived within their means, undertaken painful reforms, enhanced their
competitiveness and reinforced good values. Now they are being brutally
browbeaten for not wanting to bail out nations like Greece, Italy and Spain,
which did not do these things, which instead borrowed huge amounts of money
that they are choosing not to repay.
The estimated costs of these bailouts vary enormously and may end up being
greater than the cost of German reparations after World War I. Germans are
being browbeaten for not wanting to bail out Greece, where even today many
people are still not willing to pay their taxes. They are being browbeaten
for not wanting to bail out Italy, where future growth prospects are
uncertain.
They are being asked to bail out nations with vast public sectors and
horrible demographics. They are being asked to paper over fundamental
economic problems with a mountain of currency.
It's true that Germans benefited enormously from the euro zone and the
southern European bubble, and that German and French banks are far from
blameless. It's true that the consequences for the world would be calamitous
if the euro zone cracked up. It's true that, in a crisis, you do things you
wouldn't otherwise do; you do things that violate your everyday values.
But our sympathy should be with the German people. They are not behaving
selfishly by insisting on structural reforms in exchange for bailouts. They
are not imprisoned by some rigid ideology. They are not besotted with some
semi-senile Weimar superstition about rampant inflation. They are defending
the values, habits and social contract upon which the entire prosperity of
the West is based.
The scariest thing is that many of the people browbeating the Germans seem
to have very little commitment to the effort-reward formula that undergirds
capitalism. On the one hand, there are the technicians who are oblivious to
values. For them anything that can't be counted and modeled is a primitive
irrelevancy. On the other hand, there are people who see the European crisis
through the prism of some cosmic class war. What matters is not how people
conduct themselves, but whether they are a have or a have-not. The burden of
proof is against the haves. The benefit of the doubt is with the have-nots.
Any resistance to redistribution is greeted with outrage.
The real lesson from financial crises is that, at the pit of the crisis, you
do what you have to do. You bail out the banks. You bail out the weak
European governments. But, at the same time, you lock in policies that
reinforce the fundamental link between effort and reward. And, as soon as
the crisis passes, you move to repair the legitimacy of the system.
That didn't happen after the American financial crisis of 2008. The people
who caused the crisis were never held responsible. There never was an exit
strategy to unwind the gigantic debt buildup. The structural problems
plaguing the economy remain unaddressed. As a result, the United States
suffers from a horrible crisis of trust that is slowing growth, restricting
government action and sending our politics off in strange directions.
Europe's challenge is not only to avert a financial meltdown but to do it in
a way that doesn't poison the seedbed of prosperity. Which values will be
rewarded and reinforced? Will it be effort, productivity and
self-discipline? Or will it be bad governance, now and forever?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7)Commentary: High and mightly on the Hill
Members of Congress are getting richer and more out of touch
BY PAUL DAVIES
Of all the things that have gone wrong since the economic collapse, perhaps these two data points say it all.
The combined net worth of members of Congress increased by 25 percent between 2008 and last year, according to Roll Call. Meanwhile, the average U.S. family lost 23 percent of its net worth between 2007 and 2009, according to the Federal Reserve.
So, in the middle of a massive financial meltdown, Congress managed to get richer while the rest of the country got poorer. In fact, almost half of the members of Congress have a net worth of more than $1 million, according to a recent study by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The same study found that the average senator’s net worth increased 11 percent last year to $2.63 million.
How does that stack up against the returns on your 401(k)?
Meanwhile, home prices keep dropping. Unemployment remains stubbornly high. And the stock market is on a roller coaster, thanks in large measure to the inability of Congress to deal with the ballooning federal deficit. Despite the turmoil, many members of Congress are skating through the worst economy since the Great Depression without feeling much, if any, financial pain.
How does that happen on a bureaucrat’s salary? Some wonder if members of Congress have been able to profit from information gleaned while in office. Indeed, a Senate committee is scheduled to hold a hearing today on bills that would change congressional rules to curtail insider trading. Yes, elected officials are different from you and me. Or at least the rules for them are different.
Forget Wall Street. The real disconnect is on Capitol Hill. While many Americans are working two jobs just to make ends meet, many elected representatives are doing very little beyond collecting interest. The hard truth is this: Congress is filled with millionaires who do not pay for health insurance, have guaranteed pensions and answer mainly to special interests. That is hardly a representative government of the people or by the people. Given the gridlock in Washington, it’s certainly not a government run for the people.
The problems in Congress are many and have been building for some time. A big issue, of course, is partisanship. The Democratic Party has shifted more to the left and the Republicans more to the right, leaving virtually no middle. The deep divide makes it hard to achieve much compromise. (The one area of common ground may be the fact that there are wealthy members of Congress on both sides of the isle. According to the study, the number of millionaires on Capitol Hill is almost evenly split: 110 Democrats and 140 Republicans.)
Another problem is that congressional districts are drawn in ways that result in electing candidates from the two far ends of the political spectrum, which results in more partisanship. Drawing districts in a fair, nonpartisan way and allowing open primaries would result in more competitive races, less influence by ideological activists, and hopefully a better quality of candidates.
Still another problem is money. Elected officials spend more time raising money than university presidents. The pressure to constantly raise money was on display in January when two congressmen, Republicans Pete Sessions of Texas and Mike Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, missed the swearing-in because they were at a fundraiser in the Capitol Visitors Center.
Such moves only reduce the public’s regard for Congress, which is already below that for other American institutions, including banks, major corporations and, yes, even the media. In a recent Associated Press-National Constitution Center poll, just 8 percent said they are confident in the people running Congress. Which begs the question: Who are the 8 percent?
Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, wrote a recent op-ed for Politico that encouraged members to think more about “how their proposals would work in the real world.” Nice thought, but many in Congress are career politicians. They have no idea what life is like in the real world.
Take Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. — please. He spent 32 years in the House before announcing plans Tuesday to retire. Amazingly, Frank blamed the problems in Congress on taxpayers. “The people won’t let Congress do its work,” he said.
Such comments show the extent to which many in Congress are out of touch. Forget balanced budgets and creating jobs, let alone rooting out waste and fraud. This is a Congress that appears to operate with two main goals in mind: Get re-elected and get rich.
As for struggling masses: Go buy a lottery ticket.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment