Fire Them Both! State Department Habitually Surprised! Rorschach Test!

Another surprise blow reveals our State Department blew it again and was blindsided. (See 1 below.)
---
Israel's IDF Chief of Staff, Benny Gantz, announces a new response to rocket attacks and in doing so minces no words. (See 2 below.)
---
Unlike the Obama Administration and Attorney General Holder, Raymond Ibrahim both sees clearly and calls it as it is. (See 3 below.)
---
Noonan misses Kennedy's grace. Perhaps all the women he seduced feel the same way. (See 4 below.)
---
I am waiting to hear from John Fund whom we have asked to be our 2013 President Day speaker and am delighted to post his most recent article. Fund sees Obama as I do but instead of 'pinata' John uses 'petulant.'

Obama's latest 'petulance' simply validates why I have always believed presidential candidates should be subject to Rorschach Tests.

In Obama's case maybe the ink blots could be white to avoid any accusation of racial prejudice. (See 5 below.)
---
Holder responds and defends his boss' understanding of Constitutional Law but stops short of doing so according to Judge Smith's dictates, thereby, proving both Obama and Holder should be thrown out of office! (See 6 below.)
---
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Suleiman gives up presidential bid over Islamist foothold in young army elite


Former Egyptian intelligence strongman Gen. Omar Suleiman’s decision, finalized Thursday, April 5, to drop out of the presidential race in the June election shocked Washington and Jerusalem and dashed their hopes of a figure capable of halting or at least offsetting the Muslim Brotherhood’s monopoly of power in post-Mubarak Egypt. The Supreme Military Council ruling Egypt, the SCAF, concluded in a series of secret conferences that Brotherhood and radical lslamist power had become unstoppable, military and intelligence sources report.

SCAF chairman Field Marshal Mohammed Tantawi and Egyptian Chief of Staff Gen. Sami Annan confronted the generals at those meetings with two options:

1. To run Gen. Suleiman as the army’s candidate for president and throw all the military’s organizational and financial resources behind the bid for a ruler most of whose career had been devoted to fighting the Muslim Brotherhood and Muslim extremists: or -

2. To stand aside and let El-Shater attain the presidency. Four months after the poll, Tantawi and nearly half of the SCAF generals are due to retire. The logic behind this plan is that in July it becomes the turn of a new elite of young generals move in and take over their mission of preserving Egyptian military’s supremacy over the political system of government which will by then be dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Both these proposals were rejected after Gen. Suleiman and Gen. Murad Muwafi, head of intelligence, gave the generals a dose of the new reality. No one could count on the future elite of young generals not having been secretly penetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups, they said. Both knew of five or six young officers who were maintaining secret ties with the Brotherhood and its presidential candidate Khaiter El-Shater.Suleiman was therefore skeptical about his prospects. Even if he did win the election, he said, as president he would be outflanked and tied hand and foot by the combined force of the Muslim Brotherhood and their allies in the high military command.

Sources report the revelation of Islamist infiltration of the Egyptian officer elite came as a shock to Washington and Jerusalem, where it had been hoped that Gen. Suleiman would ride into the presidency and stall the Muslim Brotherhood’s spreading domination of Egypt.
Some senior Israeli security and intelligence officials still refuse to take Omar Suleiman’s retirement from the race as final.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Israel presents new deterrence policy

IDF chief Gantz unveils new policy whereby any firing from Gaza, Sinai will be met with attack on Hamas, fire from Lebanon will result in attack on Hezbollah and any overseas attack will prompt response against Iran


IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz on Thursday declared a change in army police whereby any firing at Israel's south will be met with an attack on Hamas, regardless of the group behind the fire. Similarly, any firing from Lebanon will result in an attack on Hezbollah, and any terror attack by Iran's emissaries overseas will prompt a response against Tehran.

Speaking at a conference in the Gelilot base, Gantz discussed the many threats Israel faces. "The IDF is Israel's sharpened sword and protector," he noted. He also addressed the firing of rockets at Eilat on Wednesday night.

It is estimated that three rockets were fired from Sinai, one of which exploded near residential buildings. The remaining two rockets have yet to be found. There were no injuries. Egyptian officials denied that the rockets had been fired from Sinai, and one security official said the Israeli reports were erroneous.


Referring to last month's round of violence in the south, Gantz said: "After disrupting a lethal terror attack, we endured attacks from the Gaza Strip for which Hamas was responsible. We acted with determination and caused grave damage to the terror organization. We proved once again that we are able to protect the lives of Israeli civilians and strike those who seek to harm us with force."


Gantz warned that "anyone who tries to test us, domestically or overseas, will find a sophisticated army ready to defend Israel and subdue its enemies."

Alluding to recent terror attacks in India, Thailand and Georgia, the IDF chief said, "We know the source of these attacks and those behind them must know that Israel's long arm will ultimately reach anyone who seeks to harm Israeli civilians and the Jewish people, Whether in Gaza, Lebanon or anywhere else."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Courtroom Terror
By Raymond Ibrahim


Apologists often try to explain away Islamic terrorism as a byproduct of something else. The usual argument is that, because Muslims are politically, socially, or militarily weak—the archetypal example often given is Israel vis-à-vis the Palestinians—they have no choice but to resort to terror to strike at their stronger adversaries. In other words, they resort to terrorism simply to even the odds—hence the argument that terrorism is the "weapon of the weak."

Though this narrative is widely accepted, it is demonstrably false. Consider the following account that took place a couple of weeks ago in Muslim-majority Egypt:

More than 300 Muslim lawyers inside and outside a courthouse in the southern Egyptian province of Assuit today [3/16] prevented defense lawyer Ahmad Sayed Gabali, who is representing the Christian, Makarem Diab, from going into court. Mr. Diab was found guilty of "Insulting the Muslim Prophet" and was scheduled today for a hearing on his appeal. Attorney Dr. Naguib Gabriell, head of the Egyptian Union of Human Rights Organization, said there was "terror in the Assiut Court today." He added that he was on his way to court when he was advised that Muslim lawyers have issued death threats to any Christian lawyers who attend the court session. "Makram Diab was assaulted by Muslim lawyers during his transfer from the courtroom and security failed to protect him." Peter Sarwat, a Coptic lawyer, said that Muslim lawyers representing the plaintiffs prevented the defense team from entering court: "They said no Muslim will defend a Christian. It was agreed that Christian lawyers would take over and two Coptic lawyers volunteered, but the Muslims decided later that even Christians would not defend him." Sarwat said the Muslim lawyers wanted to assault the chief judge but he managed to leave the court via a rear door [emphasis added].

The report goes on to explain how Muslim lawyers and activists went to court to defend Diab's right to a fair trial only to be assaulted by other Muslim lawyers: "They were assaulting us in a beastly and strange way just because we went there to defend a citizen who happened to be a Christian," said one of the lawyers, adding that exiting the court required security intervention: "We left court in a security vehicle which took us to Security headquarters, otherwise, we don't know what the outcome would have been for us."

More details include eyewitnesses reporting that the Muslim lawyers were "armed with clubs." Several, including reporters, were injured in the ensuing melee, and human rights groups were "forced out of the courtroom by the Muslims."

Was the condemned Christian's attorney right to categorize this incident as "terrorism"? According to Dictionary.com, the primary definition of terrorism is "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes." In other words, terrorism is not just limited to 9/11-type strikes, but involves intimidating, bullying, threatening, etc.—precisely what happened at this courthouse trial.

Some more key points to keep in mind:

Those making the death threats, physically assaulting others with clubs, and otherwise engaging in terrorist behavior were "more than 300 Muslim lawyers"; not jihadis or fugitives hiding out in caves, but lawyers.

The entire issue revolves around something that, by Western standards of freedom, would be a non-issue to start with: insulting a "holy" figure, Islam's Prophet Muhammad. In a Western court of law, the Christian "blasphemer" would not even be tried, but rather the terrorist "lawyers."
The attacks on fellow Muslim lawyers who merely sought to represent the condemned Christian is in keeping with Islam's doctrines of loyalty and disloyalty, which command Muslims always to side with fellow Muslims, while having enmity for non-Muslim infidels—certainly those perceived to have insulted their prophet.

The ultimate lesson emerging from this shameful fiasco is one of sheer predictability. Anyone familiar with the doings of the Islamic world—its history, its doctrines—cannot be surprised at any of the above: rage and violence in response to a non-Muslim insulting the prophet; rage and violence toward Muslim members of a legal system for trying to represent an "infidel"—these are quite standard, with ample precedent, regardless of whether the enraged Muslims are suit-and-tie wearing lawyers, or kalashnikov-toting jihadis.

Contrary to popular belief, then, and as this episode clearly shows, Islamic terrorism is not a byproduct of "weakness," but rather the typical approach to those who transgress the bounds of Sharia. Whether one man "blaspheming" Muhammad in a Muslim-majority nation (as in this example) or whether an entire nation existing on land perceived to be Islam's (as in the case of Israel)—terror is never far behind for those transgressing the bounds of Sharia.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Oh, for Some Kennedyesque Grace
Obama makes his campaign strategy clear. It's divide and conquer.
By PEGGY NOONAN


These are things we know after President Obama's speech Tuesday, in Washington, to a luncheon sponsored by the Associated Press:

The coming election fully occupies his mind. It is his subject matter now, and will be that of his administration. Everything they do between now and November will reflect this preoccupation.

He knows exactly what issues he's running on and wants everyone else to know. He is not reserving fire, not launching small forays early in the battle. The strategy will be heavy and ceaseless bombardment. The speech announced his campaign's central theme: The Republican Party is a radical and reactionary force arrayed in defense of one group, the rich and satisfied, while the president and his party struggle to protect the yearning middle class and preserve the American future.

This will be his campaign, minus only the wedge issues—the "war on women," etc.—that will be newly deployed in the fall.

We know what criticisms and avenues of attack have pierced him. At the top of the speech he lauded, at some length and in a new way, local Catholic churches and social service agencies. That suggests internal polling shows he's been damaged by the birth-control mandate. The bulk of the speech was devoted to painting Washington Republicans as extreme, outside the mainstream. This suggests his campaign believes the president has been damaged by charges that his leadership has been not center-left, but left. This is oratorical jujitsu: launch your attack from where you are weak and hit your foe where he is strong. Mr. Obama said he does not back "class warfare," does not want to "redistribute wealth," and does not support "class envy." It's been a while since an American president felt he had to make such assertions.

The speech was an unusual and unleavened assault on the Republican Party. As such it was gutsy, no doubt sincere and arguably a little mad. The other party in a two-party center-right nation is anathema? There was no good-natured pledging to work together or find common ground, no argument that progress is possible. The GOP "will brook no compromise," it is "peddling" destructive economic nostrums, it has "a radical vision" and wants to "let businesses pollute more," "gut education," and lay off firemen and cops. He said he is not speaking only of groups or factions within the GOP: "This is now the party's governing platform." Its leaders lack "humility." Their claims to concern about the deficit are "laughable."

The speech was not aimed at healing, ameliorating differences, or joining together. The president was not even trying to appear to be pursing unity. He must think that is not possible for him now, as a stance.

There was a dissonance at the speech's core. It was aimed at the center—he seemed to be arguing that to the extent he has not succeeded as president, it is because he was moderate, high-minded and took the long view—but lacked a centrist tone and spirit.

It was obviously not written for applause, which always comes as a relief now in our political leaders. Without applause they can develop a thought, which is why they like applause. In any case, he couldn't ask a roomful of journalists to embarrass themselves by publicly cheering him. But I suspect the numbers-filled nature of the speech had another purpose: It was meant as a reference document, a fact sheet editors can keep on file to refer to in future coverage. "Jacksonville, Oct. 10—GOP nominee Mitt Romney today charged that the U.S. government has grown under President Obama by 25%. The president has previously responded that in fact the size of government went down during his tenure."

An odd thing about this White House is that they don't know who their friends are. Or perhaps they know but feel their friends never give them enough fealty and loyalty. Either way, that was a room full of friends. And yet the president rapped their knuckles for insufficient support. In the Q-and-A he offered criticism that "bears on your reporting": "I think that there is oftentimes the impulse to suggest that if the two parties are disagreeing, then they're equally at fault and the truth lies somewhere in the middle." An "equivalence is presented" that is unfortunate. It "reinforces . . . cynicism." But the current debate is not "one of those situations where there's an equivalence." Journalists are failing to "put the current debate in some historical context."

That "context," as he sees it, is that Democrats are doing the right thing, Republicans the wrong thing, Democrats are serious, Republicans are "not serious."

It was a remarkable moment. I'm surprised the press isn't complaining and giving little speeches about reporting the facts without fear or favor.

I guess what's most interesting is that it's all us-versus-them. Normally at this point, early in an election year, an incumbent president operates within a rounded, nonthreatening blur. He's sort of in a benign cloud, and then pokes his way out of it with strong, edged statements as the year progresses. Mr. Obama isn't doing this. He wants it all stark and sharply defined early on. Is this good politics? It is unusual politics. Past presidents in crises have been sunny embracers.

The other day an experienced and accomplished Democratic lawyer spoke, with dismay, of the president's earlier remarks on the ObamaCare litigation. Mr. Obama had said: "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." He referred to the court as "an unelected group of people" that might "somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law."

It was vaguely menacing, and it garnered broad criticism. In the press it was characterized as a "brushback"—when a pitcher throws the ball close to a batter's head to rattle him, to remind him he can be hurt.

The lawyer had studied under Archibald Cox. Cox, who served as John F. Kennedy's Solicitor General, liked to tell his students of the time in 1962 when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Engel v. Vitale, a landmark ruling against school prayer.

The president feared a firestorm. The American people would not like it. He asked Cox for advice on what to say. Cox immediately prepared a long memo on the facts of the case, the history and the legal merits. Kennedy read it and threw it away. Dry data wouldn't help.

Kennedy thought. What was the role of a president at such a time?

And this is what he said: We're all going to have to pray more in our homes.

The decision, he said, was a reminder to every American family "that we can attend our churches with a good deal more fidelity," and in this way "we can make the true meaning of prayer much more important in the lives of our children."

He accepted the court's decision, didn't rile the populace, and preserved respect for the court while using its controversial ruling to put forward a good idea.

It was beautiful.

One misses that special grace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5) President Petulant
Obama makes Berkeley liberals look like statesmen.
By John Fund

I spoke last night at a symposium on “The Obama Presidency” at the University of California at Berkeley. In a radical city known sometimes for its liberal anger, it won’t surprise you, many of those in the audience were upset at the prospect of the Supreme Court’s overturning part or all of Obamacare. After all, Berkeley voted 88 percent for Obama in 2008. But almost no one present at the symposium was as petulant as President Obama was yesterday, when he incorrectly claimed that if the Court rules against his landmark legislation it would be taking “an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

The implication of his statement was that he hasn’t heard of Marbury v. Madison, in which the Supreme Court laid down the doctrine of judicial review in 1803, and by which the Court can strike down unconstitutional laws. Indeed, since 1981, the Court has struck down 57 specific legislative acts of Congress, an average of two per year.

The president’s statement was so extraordinary that a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the administration indeed respects the right of courts to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. As CBS’s Jan Crawford reported, Judge Jerry Smith became “very stern,” telling the lawyers arguing a separate case on the constitutionality of Obamacare that it was not clear to “many of us” whether the president believes such a right exists. He also noted Obama’s remarks yesterday in the Rose Garden about judges being an “unelected group of people.” The court was clearly not amused.

There appear to be few limits on how far President Obama will distort facts. In truth, his health-care plan passed the House by only 219 to 212, despite that body’s overwhelming Democratic majority. It was the first major piece of social legislation within memory to pass Congress without a single vote from the opposition party.

Even some liberals believe the president went too far yesterday. Ruth Marcus, an editorial writer who covers the Supreme Court for the Washington Post, said Obama’s assault “stopped me cold . . . for the president to imply that the only explanation for a constitutional conclusion contrary to his own would be out-of-control conservative justices does the court a disservice.” It was a mistake for Obama to “declare war” on the court, says Jon Meacham, a contributing editor of Time magazine. Voters don’t like hearing assaults on the Supreme Court itself, probably because Americans believe “life needs umpires, even ones who blow calls now and then.”

So it is surreal for Obama, a former constitutional-law professor and president of the Harvard Law Review, to go after the court as if he were a demagogue seeking reelection. As the Wall Street Journal put it: “Obama’s inner community organizer seems to be winning out over the law professor.”

Nor is this the first time the president has stepped out of line. During a joint session of Congress in January 2010, Obama lectured the Supreme Court justices sitting in front of him that they got it wrong in the Citizens United case, which swept away key campaign-finance restrictions on First Amendment grounds. “Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.” Obama’s statement that the Court’s ruling allowed political contributions by foreigners was plainly incorrect, earning a “Mostly False” rating from the PolitiFact website. No wonder that Justice Samuel Alito was observed by lipreaders mouthing the words “Not true” after Obama’s groundless attack.

No one believes the Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of Obamacare based on bush-league attacks on its integrity. But Obama’s misstep is only the latest in a series of blunders that further undermine his position. The presentation by Solicitor General Donald Verrelli last week before the Supreme Court was widely panned by legal scholars as weak and evasive. Verrelli caused even some liberal lawyers in the audience to wince when he preposterously claimed that Congress has passed Obamacare to deal with a serious problem “after long study and careful deliberation.” Whatever you want to call the chaotic, late-night brow beating of reluctant members to pass something — anything — to reform health care two years ago, it wasn’t pretty and it was far from careful. Recall that Senate Democrats forgot to include a standard severability clause in their drafting of the bill, which would allow the entire law to stand even if one provision is deemed unconstitutional.

And when it got to the legal substance, the Obama Justice Department didn’t do much better. “The court began where it should have begun with limiting principles (to the federal government’s power),” noted Jonathan Turley, a well-known liberal law professor at George Washington University. “And what was remarkable is that the administration seemed almost unprepared or unwilling to answer those questions with any clarity.”

The incoherence with which the Obama administration has addressed the entire issue of its signature domestic achievement continued yesterday when the president began a spat with the judiciary that was factually wrong, fatuous, and one he can’t possibly win. Several of the liberals I spoke with at Berkeley last night could only shake their head at how the man they voted for on the basis of ”hope and change” in 2008 looks like he’s in over his political head.

— John Fund, a writer based in New York, is the author of Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)Eric Holder defends Obama’s SCOTUS comments
By JOSH GERSTEIN

The Justice Department issued a brusque response Thursday to a federal appeals court’s unusual order to explain President Barack Obama’s comments that a Supreme Court ruling against his health care law would be an “unprecedented” act by “unelected people.”

Obama’s remarks Monday set off a flurry of criticism that he was questioning the role of the courts and putting the independence of the judiciary in doubt. The president clarified his comments Tuesday, but the issue has dominated White House press briefings this week, as reporters pressed Obama aides to concede that his initial remarks were inaccurate.

“The longstanding, historical position of the United States regarding judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation has not changed,” Attorney General Eric Holder wrote in a letter filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. “The Department has not in this litigation, nor in any other litigation of which I am aware, ever asked this or any other Court to reconsider or limit long-established precedent concerning judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation.”

Holder goes on to lay out the judicial power to strike down unconstitutional laws, but the attorney general also noted that courts have shown “particular deference” to Congress’s decisions, including its crafting of laws based on the Constitution’s grant of power to regulate interstate commerce.

Judge Jerry Smith, the Reagan appointee who demanded the letter during oral arguments Tuesday on a case related to the health care law, had asked that the submission be “at least three pages single spaced, no less, and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the president’s statements and again to the position of the attorney general and the Department of Justice.”

Holder’s letter falls noticeably short of the length requirement, coming in at about two-and-a-half pages.

It also does not quote from or attempt to parse Obama’s public comments in any detail. The attorney general simply declared: “The President’s remarks were fully consistent with the principles described herein.”

Holder indicated that the Justice Department considers Smith’s query to be essentially irrelevant to the case the appeals court is considering, which involves the treatment of physician-owned hospitals under the 2010 health care law.

“The question posed by the Court regarding judicial review does not concern any argument made in the government’s brief or at oral argument in this case,” Holder wrote. He said the courts’ authority to determine the constitutionality of laws “is beyond dispute.”

In a flourish that may have been aimed at Smith, Holder’s legal arguments in the letter conclude by citing opinions in favor of the health care law issued by two prominent judicial conservatives: 6th Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton and D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman.

Obama set off the flap at a news conference Monday, when he said: “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” He went on to suggest that doing so would be an act of judicial activism in which “an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”

In fact, the Supreme Court has since 1803 claimed the power to determine whether laws are constitutional and has struck down laws on that basis more than 150 times. In addition, the health care law, known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, passed the House on a narrow 219-212 vote and had to be shuffled through the Senate under an unusual procedure after Democrats lost their filibuster-proof majority.

On Tuesday, Obama expanded on his earlier remarks, saying he intended to say that the court has not struck down a law clearly related to the economy since the 1930s.

“We have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce — a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner. Right? So we’re going back to the ’30s, pre-New Deal,” Obama said during a meeting with newspaper editors. The Lochner era was a period early in the 20th Century when the Supreme Court struck down economic regulations, including minimum wage laws and measures requiring employers to allow unions.

“The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this,” the president said.

White House press secretary Jay Carney struggled to explain Obama’s claim that the law passed by a wide margin and insisted the president’s initial remarks did not convey that the high court had never struck down a law.

“He did not suggest — did not mean and did not suggest that … it would be unprecedented for the Court to rule that a law was unconstitutional,” Carney said Wednesday.

Republicans have accused Obama of trying to pressure the court in the wake of oral arguments last week on the constitutionality of the health care law. A decision is expected by June.

“The President crossed a dangerous line this week. And anyone who cares about liberty needs to call him out on it. The independence of the Court must be defended,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Thursday, according to the prepared text of his speech released by his office. “So respectfully, I would suggest the President back off. Let the Court do its work.”

Mike Zapler contributed to this report.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------