Get PJ Media on your Apple

Roger L. Simon

2016: What We Are Learning from the Drudge Presidential Poll

February 2nd, 2015 - 3:43 pm

Yes, it is waaaay early and, yes, it is an online poll, subject to all sorts of fudging, but the presidential poll being run by Matt Drudge at his website may have more to tell us about the state of the Republican presidential nomination race then many are going to want to admit.

First, Scott Walker, drawing an incredible 47% in a field of 13 candidates, no one within 33 points of him, is turning into a true front runner, with all that entails, good and bad. Second, the likes of Rick Santorum, Carly Fiorina, Rick Perry, Donald Trump, Mike Huckabee, and (amazingly) Chris Christie are all doing dreadfully, polling around a piddling one percent of the vote. Palin, Rubio and (again surprisingly — or maybe not) Jeb Bush are not doing a whole heckuva lot. Bush is the best of the lot at a pathetic five percent — and he surely doesn’t suffer from lack of name recognition.

All these candidates better hope their potential backers don’t read Drudge (unlikely) or will listen to explanations dismissing the poll. Speaking of which, before going further, I’d like to address the poll itself.  As many will remember, such polls have been skewed in the past by such things as mass voting by backers of Ron Paul (his son here comes in third currently at under thirteen percent, just behind Ted Cruz), but I have a hunch that isn’t the case here and that this is a better sample of the current Republican electorate than one might think. Drudge is Drudge, after all. We all read him. And as of 3:38PM, almost three hundred thousand people have voted, a statistically meaningful number. If I were one of those low-drawing candidates, I’d be thinking about keeping my day job — but that’s just me.

As for Mr. Walker, the man of the hour, I’d start prepping foreign policy now. As everyone knows, 2016 is shaping up as a foreign policy election. He’d better know as much about Iran as labor unions in Wisconsin. You can better the media will be laying for him on the subject. In fact, they already have, as ABC’s Martha Raddatz attempted during her sparring with him yesterday:

2016: The Search for a Commander-in-Chief Begins

February 1st, 2015 - 11:31 pm

compass_2016_10-19-14

With uncounted strains of Islamic radicalism metastasizing across the globe like some new version of the Plague, lopping off heads with no antidote in sight, and the Iranian ayatollahs on the brink of nuclear weapons thanks to a U.S. administration that seems almost eager to help them get them (most recently apparently switching allegiance in the Syrian civil war to Iran’s client Assad), America, it has become evident, has no commander-in-chief, at least not one who is wholeheartedly (or even partially) on the side of the West.

And the one we have — such as he is — humiliates our military on a practically daily basis, a sure prescription for defeat.   Ten years ago if someone told you Shariah law would come to America, you would probably have shrugged, possibly even laughed.  It isn’t so funny anymore.  (I’m not laughing.  They evidently lash bloggers.)

Terrifying as this may be, it simplifies greatly who and/or what Republicans should be looking for in a presidential candidate.  Forget economic expertise, special healthcare knowledge, foreign language skills or whatever else you might think is important.  Those things are all fine, but increasingly irrelevant.  Desperately, urgently, above all things, America needs a true commander-in-chief.

But what does that mean?  Though there are undoubtedly many qualities one could name,  I would suggest three basic ones:

1. Someone with a real strategy for how to win. This would include, as a very basic prerequisite, naming the enemy, something not done for two administrations — the first, I would imagine, out of cowardice, the second out of something close to treason.  (Yes, they both have obvious explanations for this behavior that we have all heard a dozen times, but they have reached the level of complete absurdity.  This war has been going in for nearly fourteen years in its current phase – about to triple in length World War II.)

2. The will to carry out this strategy.  This is no small thing.  Tremendous courage and commitment will be necessary to overcome radical Islam, which  has more adherents and fellow travelers than communism and Nazism ever did.  Also, it promises eternal life, something a bit more potent than free health insurance or food stamps.  Furthermore, that person will have to have the fortitude and stamina to deal with non-stop opposition from our liberal media, one of the more self-destructive entities in the history of the human race.

3.  The communication skills to bring the country with him. (I should add “or her,” because I don’t give a hoot about the gender of this person, only if he or she can do the job.  I suspect Lady Thatcher could have done better than anyone currently on our horizon, at least anyone I have seen.)  We need someone with a modicum of charisma and the ability to speak to the masses of the American people, many of whom, despite the years since 9/11, have little idea of what is going on.  It must be explained to them patiently and extensively.  They must be convinced and become part of the team.  This, again, is not easily accomplished.

So, mes amis, it’s the first of February in the 2015th year of somebody’s Lord.  We have a lot to do because we have a lot to lose.  We have to start vetting these people.  We are looking for someone with a backbone the size of Brooklyn but at the same time someone who can charm the pants off the country.  So far, I’m not willing to elevate anyone, although there are some I would cancel out.  But I’m not going to enumerate them here, because I think that is a distraction.  The object is to lift someone up, not pull others down (not on our side away).  As difficult as this search may seem — and it is extraordinarily difficult — we have one thing working on our behalf.  Difficult times seem to bring forth great leaders.  And make no mistake about it, we are in difficult times.

Brandeis University President Frederick M. Lawrence — who was caught in the crosshairs of controversy last May when the university reversed course and decided not to award an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali –  resigned today. In an email addressed to “Members of the Brandeis Community,” Lawrence announced he will step down at the end of the school year and return “to full-time scholarship and teaching as a senior research scholar Yale Law School.” Lisa Lynch, the provost, will take his place as interim president while a search is conducted.

Nowhere in the email is there mention of the fierce defender of women’s rights and critic of Islam Hirsi Ali, nor was there reference to another controversy surrounding Brandeis student Daniel Mael and his response to tweets by still another student calling the recent murder of two NYPD officers “hilarious.”

Brandeis, a secular Jewish university founded in 1948 in the wake of the Holocaust, has been under fire of late for anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic statements from students and faculty.

Here’s the full text of the email:

Dear Friend,

After careful consideration, and in close consultation with the Board of Trustees, I have decided to step down as President at the end of this, my fifth academic year. For the time being, I am looking forward to returning to full-time scholarship and teaching as a senior research scholar at Yale Law School.

I am tremendously proud of the ways Brandeis has grown and thrived during my time as president. Applications have surged to an all-time high, our endowment has grown to its highest point ever, and we have made significant progress in balancing the University’s budget. Together we were able to raise $225 million during my tenure, providing critical support for financial aid and scholarships. We re-opened and re-energized the Rose Art Museum, rebuilding its board, mounting critically acclaimed exhibitions and changing our campus landscape with the “Light of Reason” sculpture.

Addressing the critical issue of affordability of higher education, and conscious of our social justice mission, I was privileged to secure the viability of our Transitional Year Program with the naming gift in memory of Myra Kraft, and to increase scholarships and fellowships. We have also been able to recruit our top choice faculty, attracting to our ranks people of extraordinary ability as teachers and scholars. We improved our campus, and revitalized our buildings and grounds.

As a community, we stood together during times of celebration, tragedy, triumphs, and challenges — but always striving for a climate of respect for each other, and our hopes to make the world a better, more just place. I am particularly proud of programs like ‘Deis Impact, b-VIEW (Brandeis Visions of Israel in an Evolving World), and Brandeis Bridges that have been a source of dialogue on our campus, and models for discourse on campuses around the world.

I want to thank the Brandeis Board of Trustees for the opportunity to lead this strong, vital and dynamic institution and serve alongside so many extraordinary students, faculty, alumni, staff, parents and friends of the University. Every day our community exemplifies Brandeis’ legacy of social justice and repairing the world. Teaching the students who make Brandeis what it is has been a treasured opportunity. Living near campus allowed us to spend meaningful time with so many members of the Brandeis family. We will never forget those dinners and receptions in our home.

I am very glad that the Board has appointed Lisa Lynch, provost and the former Dean for the Heller School, as interim president while a search is conducted, and I have great confidence in her ability to continue the strong trajectory that we have set for Brandeis.

This is a special place, and one that has left an indelible mark on Kathy and me. We look forward to thanking many of you personally in the coming months for your support and to celebrating the achievements and successes of our time at Brandeis. My door remains open to you, and always will be.

With gratitude,

Fred Lawrence

President and Professor of Politics

Big Bad Bibi

January 28th, 2015 - 10:03 pm

obama_israel_crossed_fingers_12-6-13-1

Fee fi fo fum.  Big bad Bibi is coming to DC town — and Barack is VERY angry.  Not only that, and possibly worse,  Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic may be equally as angry. The journalist insists Netanyahu making a speech to Congress at the speaker’s invitation is a “disaster” or — in the words of my grandmother — “not good for the Jews.”  And Jeff should know.  He’s an important guy, I am told.  He gets to talk… to Barack.

Goldberg accuses Netanyahu of electioneering (a rare thing indeed for a politician) and not showing the proper “RESPECT” for our president (cue Aretha), who always demonstrates so much respect for the Israeli prime minister.

Excuse me while I rend my clothes.  Meanwhile, lost in Goldberg’s posturing, and the funfkeying by such great State Department intellects as Jen Psaki,  is the subject of Netanyahu’s putative speech. What was it?   Oh, yes… Iran.  Now I remember.  That country that has its hand in nearly every piece of  Islamic mayhem from Buenos Aires to Sanaa.

Oh, wait. I made another mistake. I said Islamic mayhem. That’s a no-no for Goldberg’s hero.  I meant, um, “workplace violence.”  Better?  Good.  The death of Alberto Nisman in Argentina was “workplace violence,” no?  He was at work,  investigating the coverup of the terror bombing of that  Buenos Aires Jewish center that killed 85 and wounded over 300 by Hezbollah or whoever it was.  They’re not Islamic, are they?

Anyway, not to worry.  We have our best journalistic minds at work.  Goldberg and others similar have assured us that Barack Obama has the best interests of Israel and obviously the West in mind. We shouldn’t be concerned that Iran has been continuing to advance its technology and nuclear  capabilities, even building ICBMs (what do they want with those — Israel’s not that far away) while talks drone on and on and on.  Obama will pull something out of the hat.  He always has.  Look at Libya.  Oh, wait… That was just the jayvee team.

Scratch that and all those other countries from Nigeria to Pakistan and back. Obama has handled the war very well without naming it.  As Goldberg et al will tell you, he doesn’t need some rude foreign dignitary pontificating to him about what to do about Iran.  Barack knew exactly what to do when all those Green demonstrators were marching for freedom in the streets of Tehran.  Ignore them and negotiate with responsible leaders like Ahmadinejad.  Oh, wait… I screwed that up again

I’m sorry.  I should know better than to criticize my betters like Jeffrey Goldberg. It’s not  his fault Obama has no discernible policy after six plus years in office  to deal with the Islamic terror war.  The president probably doesn’t want one.  Give the guy a break.

And I feel for Goldberg, really I do.  I’m sure he’s embarrassed by Bibi. And Goldberg, of all things, would like to keep his access, like CNN with Saddam.  It’s much easier to blame pushy Bibi then tell it like it is about Obama, Kerry and the rest of the mealy-mouthed crew that make Neville Chamberlain seem like Patton. But again not to worry.  If Ayatollah Khamenei nixes a deal at the end, as most sentient beings assume he will, maybe Kerry can get James Taylor to serenade him.

And I’m sorry again to be so hostile to Goldberg and his “liberal” ilk, but I’m having echoes these days of 1938. Another Kristallnacht hasn’t quite happened yet, but we’ve come mighty close.  Time’s up for being polite. Protocol-shmotocol.  Benjamin Netanyahu isn’t the problem.  Barack Obama is.

PLAY REVIEW: Barton Disconnects

January 25th, 2015 - 6:00 pm

allen_barton_disconnection_poster_1-25-15-1

The  controversial Church of Scientology has been in the crosshairs of the media of late, notably with Pulitzer Prize winner Lawrence Wright’s excellent journalistic study Going Clear and Paul Thomas Anderson’s  film The Master.  Now comes Allen Barton’s play Disconnection, which opened Saturday at the Beverly Hills Playhouse venue of the Skylight Theatre Company in Los Angeles.

Like The Master, Disconnection does not mention the “S”-word but it is more than obvious the celebrity-driven religion famed for almost imprisoning its gullible and needy adherents is the subject here.  The play, however, is considerably more potent and provocative than the Anderson movie, which is surprisingly ponderous given its dramatic subject.

Barton, who extricated himself from Scientology some years ago, tells the story of the apostasy of two members of the church, a father and a daughter, who have themselves been estranged from each other.  The two are trying to disconnect from the religion and reconnect with each other — and it isn’t easy.  The father (Jay Hugely), a lawyer, is struggling with his aging piano teacher (Dennis Nollette), himself a reluctant member of the church and onetime friend of its mercurial L. Ron Hubbard-like founder, Oldman.  The daughter (Carter Scott), herself now a high ranking church official, is trapped in a nightmare with Oldman’s successor, a junior Gestapo-type named The Chairman.

Indeed Disconnection often puts you in mind of other totalitarianisms, including today’s radical Islamic versions where apostasy is, of course, penalized in even more draconian manners than in Scientology, although there are imputations, both in and out of Barton’s play, of  brutal, even homicidal, behavior for the more modern religion.

The play is unconventional in its form, at times breaking the fourth wall, and includes, in one of its best moments, a soliloquy by Oldman (well played by Robert L. Hughes) justifying why he has created this bizarre monstrosity.  It almost had me taking the plunge to get an e-meter reading. (I didn’t.)

The production was skillfully directed by Joel Polis and produced by Gary Grossman for Skylight. Barton’s previous work Years to the Day was highly acclaimed and was performed in Paris, New York, Kansas City and at the Edinburgh Festival.  The superb Disconnection seems destined to follow in its footsteps.  If you’re in the SoCal area, see it.

Obama, the Shiite, Goes to Riyadh

January 24th, 2015 - 12:23 pm

obama_shell_game_big_11-3-13-1

Remember how Richard Nixon told us to watch what he does, not what he says?  Good advice.  Well, Barack Obama — our POTUS who makes Nixon and Clinton seem like Diogenes — thinks like a postmodern agnostic, professes to be a Christian, but acts like a Shiite.

During Obama’s presidency the influence of Ayatollah Khamenei’s Iranian Shiite regime has spread across the world like the proverbial wildfire, reaching from North Africa into Iraq, Lebanon (via Hezbollah), Syria (via Assad whose red line on chemical weapons famously faded into invisibility), Gaza (via improved relations with Hamas) and now into Yemen (via the Houthis) and undoubtedly a number of other places, including Venezuela, North Korea and Cuba.  And our president, consciously or unconsciously or both, has had as much to do as anyone with the creation of this nascent, soon-to-be nuclear armed and missile-ready  fundamentalist “Greater Persia.”  No wonder the Sunni Saudis are alarmed — they have been for a long time — and no wonder Obama suddenly decided to replace Biden in paying a condolence visit to Riyadh for the death of King Abdullah.  He has some powerful fence-mending to do that pretend bowing and scraping may not so easily solve.

Much of this Iran-coddling began back when the Green Movement was in the streets of Tehran seeking the overthrow of the ayatollahs and chanting “Obama, Obama… Are you with us or are you with them?” Our president did not respond.  He was already in private communication with the bizarre Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  Obama wanted to be the one who got credit for reining in the excesses of the Islamic Republic, not those unruly student demonstrators who were the ones suffering from the regime in the first place, being murdered, tortured and raped in Evin Prison, often in reverse order.

Indeed, this unconscionable and out-of-control narcissism has been the key to Obama’s foreign policy throughout and accounts for the catastrophic global results we see in front of us now.  The “leading from behind” mantra has always been a fraud, masking what it really means: “I, Barack, know best and manipulate affairs from behind.”  It’s all about me.  (Is it ever!)

Now I realize Obama is not really a Shiite.  He was raised in Sunni Indonesia. And, yes, Sunnis — notably ISIS, Boko Haram and AQAP — are leading the way in the public butchery department for the moment and need to be opposed with all our might.  But that doesn’t mean Shiites are not active.  Just the other day we had the mysterious Buenos Aires death of Alberto Nisman, who was about to reveal truths about the 1994 bombing of the Jewish community center in that city in which 85 were killed — a kind of simultaneous beheading in which Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah are said to be the culprits. Almost anyone honest and awake knows the Islamic Republic is and has been the primary state sponsor of terrorism worldwide for decades.

Yet Obama persists in playing sides in a literally insane Shiite-Sunni religious conflict that has gone on so long it makes the Hundred Years’ War seem like the three-week invasion of Grenada. (Interestingly, in a January 20 column, “Say It Like It Is,” Thomas Friedman finally breaks the New York Times omertà on radical Islam, saying the president is wrong for not naming the enemy. But in doing so, Friedman isolates the violence as almost all coming from Arab and Pakistani Sunnis, giving the president continued cover to appease Iran.)  The reason for Obama’s persistence is not religious, but the aforementioned narcissism. He had already plighted his troth on a pax Iranian.  Making it easier was his longtime conviction that Western imperialism was the root cause of most evil on the planet anyway.  The president now has an Iran deal so tied up in his mind with his legacy that the appearance of Netanyahu in front of Congress opens a psychological wound so large Obama is likely to do almost anything.  The world — not just Saudi Arabia and Israel — had better beware.

The Rebuttal: Did Joni Play Too Nice?

January 20th, 2015 - 10:09 pm

After recent missteps from Marco Rubio (water bottle) and Bobby Jindal (tension),  Joni Ernst was probably under strict orders to channel Hippocrates’  famous dictum about doing no harm for her rebuttal to Obama’s SOTU Tuesday night.  And the new Iowa senator clearly did no harm, delivering a workmanlike though relatively bland speech that gave no particular opportunity for media vampires to pick over her remains.

And she did at least mention the A-word (al-Qaeda) that was curiously missing from the president’s address even though AQAP (al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula) has been a little bit active in France lately, not to mention Brussels.  And speaking of the Arabian Peninsula, Yemen inconveniently seems to have had a Shiite (pro-Iranian) coup on the very day the president was acting as if the War on Terror [sic] was over.  But none of this passes the lips of Barack Obama, for whom the I-word in any of its forms (Islam, Islamist, radical Islam, etc., etc.) is  as off-limits as a Mohammed cartoon on the front page of the New York Times — unless it’s to insist any act of violence could have nothing to do with a religion that so closely resembles Quakerism.

Still Joni missed an opportunity, not specifying radical Islam as our (and modern civilization’s) enemy in her speech, because I strongly suspect America is ready for our politicians to star telling the obvious truth, the omission seeming chicken-hearted and stupid. In fact, when Frank Luntz polled his post-SOTU focus group on the Kelly File on the topic, the group was almost unanimous in wanting radical Islam named, even though half of them had been Obama voters.  People are fed up — and they should be.

Another subject Ernst, a veteran, might have brought up — yes, I know she only had seven minutes — was Gitmo.  Obama is obviously doubling down on it, again at odds with the public.  Almost any normal person — Republican or Democrat — sees extraordinary risk in this, letting potential mass murderers free.

And a third issue Ernst should have dealt with is of course the aforementioned Iran.  This is the subject of Obama’s biggest and most dangerous lie — that Iran has been in any real sense held back in its nuclear ambitions, also his most dangerous veto threat to the safety of the world.

All these issues — foreign policy in general — are a huge vulnerability for the Democrats this year, perhaps their biggest vulnerability. I think it should be seized upon at any time, for the good of the Republicans, but even more, at this point, for the sake of humanity. But perhaps I’m too aggressive.  Joni did no harm.  And I liked her shoes.

Oscar Report: Al Sharpton Calls Me a Racist!

January 15th, 2015 - 9:48 pm
sharpton_directors_chair_12-19-14-1

The central scrutinizer on the set.

Maybe it’s actually a badge of honor — after all Sharpton himself makes Bull Connor seem like Martin Luther King — but the Rev Al has called me a racist because I am one of those (white!) Academy members who did not vote for Selma as an Oscar nominee.  I cannot tell a lie.  He’s right.  Not only that, I did not vote for the movie for screenplay either, the only other category for which I can nominate, since I am in the writers branch.

Of course, it was a group accusation.  Al didn’t come to my house or anything, not that I would have let him in.  But I do acknowledge my vote publicly, although it’s a secret ballot taken online, known only to the Academy and fifty thousand North Korean hackers.  On my behalf,  I will say I only nominated three films (Birdman, Boyhood and The Imitation Game) instead of the permissible ten.  I’m one of those elite snobs who thinks nominating ten films for best picture is the cinematic equivalent of grade inflation. (Also, I’m easily bored.)

Nevertheless, it was a bit depressing to wake up this morning to find myself accused of racism on the top of Drudge.  I tried to tweet Matt the truth that I voted for Twelve Years a Slave last year — I thought maybe he’d put something up — but didn’t get an answer. So I’m stuck.

Pages: 1 2 | 71 Comments»

What Romney Can Do

January 14th, 2015 - 9:34 pm
mitt_romney_1-14-15-1

Romney on the stump in 2012. (Photo by American Spirit / Shutterstock.com.)

Mitt Romney got it on the chin in a well-written Wall Street Journal editorial Wednesday morning — “Romney Recycled.” I won’t rehash it all here, you can read it, but it comes down to this — oh, again???  (Rand Paul also took some shots at Romney, but he’d be better off keeping his eye on his father, the way things are going.)

The WSJ might have been a bit harsh but they were just expressing what everybody thinks.  Even Mitt’s supporters harbor those worries.  But I have a solution for Romney.  He should throw caution to winds — BE THE PRESIDENT NOW (caps definitely mine — yes, I’m shouting)!!!

Why do I say that?  Because America doesn’t have a real president at the moment and we are at war with radical Islam. ( I should add a “duh” in there.) The reactionary creep in the White House won’t even name it, let alone fight it. And we don’t have time to wait until 2017 to turn this around, as Jay Sekulow pointed out on Hannity.  In a couple of months things could be spinning out of control, so many jihadists popping up in Europe, here, Australia, and everywhere else, we won’t know how to count them.  And that’s not even including all the cyber war that’s going to be waged against us and already is.

Romney should put all the traditional election nonsense on the back burner, forget the fundraising and the tedious position papers on the various issues. That stuff can wait, if it’s even important.  He should take the bully pulpit for himself now and tell America and the world what we should do about radical Islam.  Nobody else is doing it and we’ve been fighting this undeclared war for 14 years.  And the bad guys are ahead and growing   It’s not just the major issue.  It’s the only issue, if we don’t win.  Who cares if we do or don’t have Obamacare, if we’re living under Shari’ah law?

Pages: 1 2 | 137 Comments»

Is the White House a ‘Sleeper Cell’?

January 12th, 2015 - 11:11 pm

obama_sleeper_cell_1-12-15-2

I’m still trying to figure out why Obama — or any high-level U. S.  government official other than Eric Holder, who was in Paris but evidently had better things to do — didn’t join the nearly 4 million people who marched throughout France protesting the terror killings at #CharlieHebdo and the Hyper Cacher market.  White House press secretary Josh Earnest has admitted the mistake and apologized (perhaps a little wishy-washily, but we’ll give him a pass), informing us that, unfortunately, there just wasn’t enough time to arrange presidential security for the trip.

That’s interesting.  Somehow there was time for security for 40 or so other world leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel (arguably the most highly regarded politician on the planet at the moment and the de facto president of the EU), the UK’s David Cameron, Spain’s Mariano Rajoy and even Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu (probably a considerably bigger target than Obama these days and not exactly welcomed by France’s President Hollande, if reports are correct).  Of course, the “American president” is supposedly more important but — correct me if I’m wrong — Obama was not originally so gung-ho on American exceptionalism, equating it with British exceptionalism and Greek exceptionalism, etc., etc.  All countries, after all, feel they are exceptional.

Well, he’s changed his mind on this several times, so who’s to say? And there was a game on. I’m a sports fan, too, tennis more than football (wimpy, huh?), so I understand.  You’d have trouble prying me away from the Australian Open when it starts next week. (Djokovic and Nadal ain’t so wimpy.) But still, in the event of one of the biggest and ugliest terror events in recent years, if I were president,  I hope I’d TiVo a couple of rounds.

Just yesterday I theorized the real reason Obama didn’t go is he just couldn’t put the words “Islamic” and “terrorism” together in one sentence even if, forgive the tired image, it hit him in the face. (The exception of course being when insisting that something is NOT Islam.)  He just can’t handle it after nearly fifty years of virtually non-stop anti-imperialist programming.  His mind would fly apart if he had to utter the words “radical Islamic terrorism,” which French PM Valls, and any honest person, was quite willing to do.

Pages: 1 2 | 221 Comments»