What if I told you that a right wing professor at a state University received $7,000 from the University—taxpayer money—to travel on a political solidarity tour to a KKK rally, in order to further the agenda of this hateful organization? Do you think this would be allowed to happen? Would the President of the University approve this trip? Of course, this would never be a possibility. A University professor who went on such a trip would be blackballed, and the University President who approved it would be fired—and rightly so.
Now, what if I told you that a leftwing college professor at San Francisco State University received $7,000 from the University—taxpayer money—to travel on a political solidarity tour to the Middle East to meet with notorious terrorist and convicted hijacker Leila Khaled—member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a recognized terrorist organization—in order to further the agenda of this hateful organization? Rational people would assume this would not be allowed to occur. But it already has.
Once again, the double standard in regards to Israel at the University is on full display. Outspoken anti-Israel SFSU Professor Rabab Abdulhadi actually used University and taxpayer money to travel to the Middle East to meet with the most famous member of the PFLP, a terrorist organization responsible for 159 terrorist attacks, including the murder of 20 U.S. citizens. In addition, Abdulhadi met with Sheikh Raed Salah, an Islamist leader who was jailed for incitement to violence and encouraging a third intifada in Israel. Abdulhadi admitted this trip was a “political solidarity tour,” in order to advance the boycott campaign against Israel, which seeks the elimination of the Jewish State.
The Zionist Organization of America, along with AMCHA and several other pro-Israel groups, contacted SFSU President Leslie Wong, when these events came to light, to express our outrage and demand an investigation. Unbelievably, President Wong defended this use of taxpayer money, saying, “Faculty can and do communicate with others relevant to their research.” I suppose, when you are a vehemently anti-Israel professor, meeting with terrorists who seek to murder Israelis is part of your research.
The Dean of the College of Ethnic Studies at SFSU, Professor Kenneth Monteiro, also came to Abdulhadi’s defense, writing “I recommit the College as a safe haven for free and respectful expression for all of our students, staff and faculty, including when such discourse is contested and possibly disquieting.” Would Monteiro offer the same defense to a professor showing “political solidarity” to the KKK?
Next, we contacted State Controller John Chiang—who has investigative authority over the use of state funds. We are still awaiting his reply on this matter.
J-Street and others on the left who are demanding Israel cede territory in order to resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict are living in an alternate universe.
Yesterday, J-Street sent out a mass email to its supporters. Here is part of that email:
“Secretary Kerry has brought much-needed urgency and focus to the cause [of peace]. Though details of his strategy remain appropriately confidential, we have seen hints, notably coming out of this week’s meeting with senior members of the Arab League in Washington. It’s clear the Secretary is aiming to put efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a regional, comprehensive framework in part by building on the Arab Peace Initiative (API), which J Street has long believed offers real promise as a basis for negotiations…Unfortunately, Israeli and US leaders till now have failed to grasp this outstretched hand and the initiative languished. Now, Kerry is clearly working hard to revive it, bringing other Arab moderates into the equation to bolster and strengthen his efforts to narrow the gap between Israel and the Palestinians.”
The email goes on to encourage J-Street supporters to contact their representatives to put pressure on the Obama administration to push through a deal similar to the Arab Peace Initiative.
The Arab Peace Initiative calls for Israel to withdraw from all captured territory in the 1967 Six Day War. This includes giving the Golan Heights back to Syria. The same Syria that is embroiled in a civil war, where chemical weapons have probably been used and at least 70,000 citizens have been killed. We just learned that Israel attacked targets in Syria, in order to prevent Iranian missiles from being handed-off to Hezbollah.
In addition, Hamas–the rejectionist, genocidal terrorist organization–still controls Gaza, and fires rockets into Israeli towns. Plus, Iran is marching ever closer to a nuclear weapon, and supports the murderous Assad regime in Syria.
And in the midst of all of this, J Street wants Israel to revert to the indefensible pre-1967 borders, and give the Golan Heights–a significant military asset– back to Syria. This is truly a mind-boggling agenda for a supposed pro-Israel organization, and should serve to further discredit this already marginalized group.
AIPAC likes to boast that it is a bipartisan organization, and that support for Israel is overwhelming in both parties. Well, that is not exactly true.
Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA) is perhaps the last principled pro-Israel Democrat left in Congress, since all his Democratic allies in the Senate voted to confirm Israel-hater Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense. Sherman is a staunch supporter of Israel — endorsing every piece of pro-Israel legislation making its way through congress — and the only Democrat who has been honest about the leftward shift of his party away from Israel.
Without even being asked about it, he opened one of his talks at AIPAC, saying, “We have a problem on our left-wing” and “we have some work to do in the liberal community” regarding the decrease of support for Israel in his party. He went on, “I go into left-wing rooms and hear things I don’t want to hear…on the far, far left, they hate Israel because its pro-American.” He said this is because “liberals instinctively root for the underdog” and see the Middle East conflict through the lens of Israel oppressing the Palestinians.
He urged liberal, pro-Israel Jews to combat this by, among other things, informing the left about how open Israel is to the LGBT community. He said Israel advocates must become more engaged in their communities and teach their fellow citizens about the positive qualities of Israel.
When asked about the possibility of America using force against Iran, Sherman plainly said, “America will not attack Iran” to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon because it is war weary from Iraq and Afghanistan. This was a stunning admission by him, as the night before Vice President Biden — restating what Obama has said in the past — told the entire conference that all options, including the military one, must remain on the table. But according to Congressman Sherman, the American threat of force by President Obama is not credible.
I had a chance to ask Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal about his thoughts on the Hagel confirmation in front of hundreds of AIPAC attendees, and he did not disappoint.
He said the selection of Hagel by Obama was an “absolutely outrageous pick,” and that it is “hard to imagine a worse signal the administration could have sent about Iran.”
He also said, “If I were an Israeli decision-maker, I would be drawing some conclusions” about the pick, and that “[Hagel's] idea of Iran is that it is a misunderstood country.”
He went on, saying “[Hagel] got defended in ways that are frightening,” surely referring to all the the Jewish Democrats in the Senate who came out and supported Hagel, and unanimously voted for his confirmation.
AIPAC prides itself as being a “bipartisan” organization, and they were noticeably silent during the entire Hagel fiasco, because they wouldn’t dare criticize Obama. So it was refreshing to have Stephens air out his well-known views in this AIPAC forum, where many democrats were surely listening.
I recently returned home from an unforgettable two-week trip to Israel with the Young Jewish Conservatives. We spoke to members of the Israeli Knesset and Foreign Ministry, we traveled to places such as Hebron and Sderot that most American tour groups do not visit. Some lessons I found worth sharing:
1.) “Save a Child’s Heart”, is an Israeli charitable organization that performs pediatric heart surgery for non-Jewish children in desperate need of help. Free of charge. Since its inception in 1995, the organization has saved the lives of 3,000 non-Jewish children, 50% of whom came from Gaza, the West Bank, and Iraq.
I asked a member if the organization helps the image of Israel in the Palestinian territories: “We hope so.”
2.) There are only two U.N. refugee agencies in the world. The United Nations Relief and Works Administrations (UNRWA) was created to serve five million Palestinian “refugees” (this figure includes the descendants of the original 500,000 Palestinian refugees from the Israeli War of Independence); it employs 30,000 workers. The UNRWA has never resettled a Palestinian.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) was created to assist every other refugee in the world; 100 million people have been considered displaced over the last 50 years. It employs 7,000 people, but has resettled tens of millions of refugees.
3.) Many on the Israeli political right do not value the American-Israel relationship, thinking it causes more harm than good (they are not big fans of AIPAC), and they are not just talking about the Obama era. Many of them, including Moshe Feiglin (Netanyahu’s political rival in Likud), think America attaches too many strings to its support. They think America routinely coerces Israel into making one-sided concessions, and Israel needs to become independent of America and more self-reliant in the international arena. Mr. Feiglin told us that he does not care if Romney or Obama wins the election, as Israel can take care of itself.
Gil Hoffman, Chief Political Correspondent of the Jerusalem Post, told us that many on the right in Israel actually want President Obama to be reelected, because he has proven himself to be a failure with regards to the peace process and they therefore are confident Israel will not relinquish any land as long as he is president. Conversely, they fear that Netanyahu would trust a President Romney, which could accelerate the peace process and lead to Israeli concessions. Mr. Hoffman told us: “There is no peace process because of the President of the United States.” For this same reason, many on the Israeli left are worried Obama will win reelection.
4.) Many Arabs in the “occupied” territories actually work in construction for Israeli settlers. According to Rabbi Ben Packer: when settlement construction slows down, Arab employment decreases accordingly.
Here are some photos and videos from my trip through Israel with the Young Jewish Conservatives that are worth sharing.
I took this photo in the town of Hebron, which is now mostly controlled by the Palestinians. In 1929, Arabs infamously massacred 67 Jews in Hebron. This is a check point–guarded by Israeli soldiers–which leads to an Arab neighborhood. Find out what they are guarding against next…
That’s right. There is actually a place in Eretz Israel that Jews are strictly forbidden from entering. Notice how the sign reads “Jewish Access Forbidden” rather than “Israeli Access Forbidden.” This means that Israeli Arabs–who make up 20% of Israel–are allowed to access this Arab neighborhood of Hebron, but not Jews. I spoke to many experts throughout Israel, and they told me that there is nothing comparable to this within Israel that forbids Muslim access.
The Israeli soldiers are guarding the check point because if any Jew gets through they are likely to be murdered. Who are the racists?
A Palestinian man has been sentenced to death for selling this house–which is now unoccupied and guarded by Israeli police–to a Jew.
According to Caroline Glick,
“The PA was established in May 1994. The first law it adopted defined selling land to Jews as a capital offense. Shortly thereafter scores of Arab land sellers began turning up dead in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria in both judicial and extrajudicial killings.”
Once again the tolerance of the Palestinians is on display.
Rabbi Ben Packer–one of the main guides on our trip– explains to us why a certain Israeli guard post is situated in Hebron.
This is the dreaded security fence that many Israel haters have called an “apartheid wall.” This “wall” separates parts of Israel from Judea and Samaria (The West Bank), and was erected to stem the flow of Palestinian suicide bombers. The “wall” has been very effective, as terrorist attacks have plummeted since it was built.
Notice how the “wall” is slanted at certain parts. This is to protect from Palestinian snipers, located in high rise buildings, who have targeted Israeli motorists on this exact road. It is clearly not an “apartheid wall”, as 20% of the citizens on the Israeli side are Arab.
This is the famous Caterpillar bomb shelter in Sderot that was built on an Israeli playground to protect children from Hamas rockets. Residents in Sderot–which is the nearest town to the Hamas controlled Gaza–have suffered from thousands of rocket attacks since Israel vacated Gaza. Israeli citizens have 15 seconds to get to a bomb shelter once the siren goes off.
Here is a video of some of the rockets that have hit Sderot:
My tour of Israel continues with the Young Jewish Conservatives. Today we had the opportunity to meet with Gil Hoffman — the Chief Political Correspondent of the Jerusalem Post. He told us that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s trip to Israel in a few days is because the “Palestinians are afraid of Mitt” and understand that he has a good chance of winning the election. The Palestinians are worried that a potential President Romney, who is scheduled to visit Israel soon, as well, will be much harder on them, and therefore believe that now is the time to draw as many concessions out of Israel as they can while the equivocating Obama is still in office. Apparently the Palestinians made a gesture to Clinton to get the ball rolling.
However, the Palestinians should not hold their breath. Mr. Hoffman explained to us that Israel only makes concessions (which usually takes the form of giving up land) under three different circumstances. First, is if there is a charismatic American president that Israel trusts and reveres (for example, Bill Clinton when Netanyahu gave up Hebron during his first stint as Prime Minister); next is if there is a trustworthy Arab leader (such as Egyptian Leader Sadat, when Israel gave up the Sinai); and lastly, a unilateral withdrawal that Israel thinks is in their best interest (such as the pull out from Gaza).
According to Mr. Hoffman, none of these circumstances apply now as Israel does not trust Obama or the Palestinian leadership, and are in no mood to give up land after the Gaza disengagement led to a Hamas take over and rockets pouring onto its southern border.
Stay tuned for more updates.
I am traveling through Israel with the Young Jewish Conservatives—an emerging organization that is breaking the stereotype that all Jews (especially young ones) lean to the left.
Tonight we had the opportunity to speak with someone who shall remain anonymous, and who is a very credible source. He told us that there are those at the “highest levels of the Israeli Government” (possibly including Prime Minister Netanyahu himself) who have recently said that 4 more years of an Obama Presidency would be a “nightmarish scenario” for the Jewish State.
This Israeli fear of a second Obama term should surprise no one that has been following the disintegration of the Israel/American relationship during the last few years. After all, with regards to Israel’s greatest fear, a nuclear armed Iran, Obama has totally dropped the ball.
The only way Iran will peacefully abandon its nuclear weapons program is if it fears a credible military threat from America or Israel. Obama has seriously undermined this threat by giving in to endless “talks” with Iran, and for spending the bulk of his energy convincing Israel not to take pre-emptive military action. As a retired Israeli soldier told us yesterday, “Iran is laughing all the way to the bomb.”
Speaking with the citizens, soldiers and politicians in Israel during the last few days, I can tell you that they are terrified of a second Obama term.
The questions is: do American Jewish liberals care? We’ll find out in a few months.
I went to the Santa Monica College campus following the Pepper Spray Incident, to ask the students if they had any responsibility to pay for their own education…or healthcare…or housing…
This is what the culture of liberalism has done to today’s youth.
According to DefendSmallBusiness.com:
Well-funded professional activists, led by the left-wing pressure group Media Matters, are waging a campaign across America to hurt small businesses like yours through strong-arm tactics and intimidation.
They don’t like Rush Limbaugh’s point of view, they resent his extraordinary popularity, and they are trying to silence him by punishing small businesses that advertise on his show!
They are actually trying to shut down businesses – tying up phone lines, crashing websites, bombarding Facebook pages or Twitter accounts, and preventing real customers from getting through.
Does Media Matters understand that companies who purchase advertising many times do not even know what shows will run their ads? The way it works is that a business will contact an advertising agency with information about their budget and what demographic and region they want to target. The ad agency will then take that information and specifically place the ad to appeal to that narrow audience. It’s not as if a company will call up Rush Limbaugh and ask him if they can advertise on his show. It does not generally work that way.
So it is very likely that some of the businesses that are getting harassed by Media Matters do not even know that they are advertising on Rush’s show. They might just have a product that they want to sell to the demographic that listens to Rush, thereby causing their ad agency to choose Rush’s show as an effective way to reach that demographic.
However, even if some of the companies chose to advertise on Rush’s show, is this really the road we want to go down in America? Should business owners have signs on their windows that state, “I am a Democrat and I do not advertise on conservative talk radio” or ” I am a Republican and I do not advertise with MSNBC.”
This is not the free market at work. This is intimidation and strong-arm tactics by a left-wing organization.
Usually the left hurts small businesses unintentionally, by enacting misguided legislation for sincere reasons. However, in this example, the left is intentionally and maliciously hurting small business owners.
President Obama, care to comment?
The Republican Jewish Coalition just released this report on the growing gap between Democrats and Republicans regarding support for Israel:
Gallup, in a poll released recently, asked American voters, “Are your sympathies more with the Israelis or more with the Palestinians?” An overwhelming 78% of Republicans chose Israel, with 21% choosing the Palestinians or both/neither/no opinion. Among Democrats, a bare majority of 53% chose Israel, with 47% choosing otherwise. Among Independents, support for Israel was 56% with 44% choosing otherwise.
Democrats hate to talk about this — but it has been true for a while that the Republican party, in general, is much more supportive of Israel than the Democrats.
Democrats like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz try to obfuscate this fact, by declaring that Republicans should not make support for Israel a political issue. She recently said this about the GOP Presidential candidates:
Because they know they can’t attract voters with their domestic policy, Republicans turn to Israel and attempt to make the Jewish state a partisan issue as a last ditch attempt to sway the Jewish community’s vote…Let me be clear: As an American Jewish leader, I am extremely proud of President Barack Obama’s ongoing commitment to Israel.
That Wasserman-Schultz is “extremely proud” of Obama’s commitment to Israel tells American voters everything they need to know about the Democrats’ support for Israel. Schultz would rather shill for her party’s leader than tell the truth about the major rift that has grown between America and Israel ever since Obama took office.
Why shouldn’t Republicans point out the statistics above? If Wasserman-Schultz wished to put the fate of Israel above protecting her party, she would do the same thing.
If I were a Jewish liberal, I would have to think long and hard what it is about the modern left that is causing a principled liberal, civil libertarian, and ardent Israel supporter like Alan Dershowitz to consider leaving the Democratic Party.
Recently, Alan Dershowitz stated:
First of all, [Media Matters] are not liberals. They are radical Stalinists, for the most part. … They’re radical extremists….And any association with the Obama administration is going to hurt the Obama administration. There’s not enough room under a big tent for both me, and people who are like me-support Israel, I’m a centrist in support of Israel, I’m in favor of the two-state solution-there’s not enough room for me and the bigots of Media Matters. The Obama administration is going to have to choose….I could not vote for any candidate who had anything to do with Media Matters. That’s clear. That’s as clear as can be. I will not-I will take an oath here that I will not vote for a candidate who has any direct association with Media Matters.
To Alan Dershowitz, I would like to formally invite you to join the pro-Israel party, the Republican Party.
Fresh off a series of poor primary showings, Newt Gingrich attended a tea party town hall in Pasadena–a city adjacent to Los Angeles–last night, where he spoke to a packed crowd and took some questions. From the electricity and high energy in the room, one would never know that Newt is basically last in the new polls, far behind Mitt Romney and the new flavor of the month, Rick Santorum.
There were about 250 people in attendance to hear Newt speak about American energy, the welfare state, and the problems liberalism has caused California. He optimistically stated:
I don’t see any reason with high unemployment, high gasoline prices, huge deficits, a government that’s failing, big dangers in the international world—I see no reason for us to say, well California can’t be competitive [in the general election].
In addition, Newt criticized America’s 9th circuit court for attacking America’s fundamental religious underpinnings, such as the notion that America is “One Nation Under God,” and railed against “President Obama’s war on the Catholic Church,” to a thundering applause. He also went after the Los Angeles Unified School District for “Caring more about protecting bad teachers, than teaching students.” With these talking points Newt was very effective.
But Newt’s problem has never been speaking to conservatives about hard policy. He does that better than anyone. His problem is when he acts desperate and petty, whether it’s calling Romney “anti-immigrant” or attacking the former Governor’s business record from the left. In doing this, Newt has turned off a lot of primary voters, as the polls indicate, and as some attendees told me last night.
There is no denying that, once again, Newt has a very difficult uphill battle ahead. One of his problems is that up until this point, Newt has been very amicable with Santorum. He has viewed the former Pennsylvania Senator as harmless, while viciously attacking Romney. As such, Newt framed the narrative as a race between himself, the real conservative, and Romney, the moderate; relegating Santorum to the role of gadfly.
But now, with Santorum’s recent Newt-esque meteoric rise, the question is: how is Newt going to separate himself from Santorum? With his recent string of victories and his impressive second place showing in the CPAC straw poll, Santorum has become in many people’s view the conservative alternative to Romney. Does Newt really think he has a shot at winning, or is he just playing the role of spoiler?
Last night, Newt repeated that he would continue fighting up until the convention.
For far too long, the Democratic Party has had a monopoly on support from the Jewish community, despite the fact that the GOP has been considerably more supportive of Israel in recent years.
However, according to a new Pew Poll:
Republicans have…seen gains among Jewish voters, who have long been strong supporters of the Democratic Party. In 2008, 72% of Jews identified themselves as Democrats or said they leaned toward the Democratic Party, and Democrats held a 52-point advantage among this group. In 2011, the Democratic advantage among Jews has shrunk to 36 points, with 29% of the Jewish population aligning with the GOP. While the majority of Jews are still Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party, Democrats’ dominance among this group has weakened since the last presidential election. In fact, Jews are the only religious group analyzed in which the percentage who identify themselves as Republican (as opposed to leaning toward the GOP) has risen significantly.
No doubt most Jews who vote Democrat simply do so out of tradition — their parents were Democrats etc. But is it possible that Obama’s lukewarm relationship with Israel has alarmed American Jews who put a premium on Israel’s security? After all, he hasn’t visited the country since he’s been president, and has presented himself as a moderator within the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, rather than a stalwart friend of the only Jewish state. Is it possible that the Jewish community is finally coming to its senses? Let’s hope so!
Check out this PJTV video of Roger L. Simon exploring this topic at a Republican Jewish Coalition event last year.
According to sources in Las Vegas:
An advisor to Donald Trump says he will make a major announcement in Las Vegas tomorrow. Sources tell the 8 News NOW I-Team Trump will endorse Newt Gingrich.
Too little too late, or the catalyst of Newt’s umpteenth comeback?
But by this morning, other sources said that Trump’s endorsement may actually go to Mitt Romney, who Trump has been lobbied heavily to endorse for the last few weeks. Matt Drudge, who has ties to top Romney officials, was the first to report it.
According to an Insider/Advantage poll:
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney apparently has reversed a surge by Newt Gingrich to retake the momentum in the Florida primary…The poll shows that Republicans most likely to vote in the state’s closed primary now favor Romney over Gingrich by 40 to 32 percent. Rep. Ron Paul has 9 percent, while former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum has 8 percent.
According to Rush Limbaugh, Newt is the victim of “coordinated attacks,” which have clearly done serious damage.
Ann Coulter, on her own, has spent the last month castigating Newt as the anti-Christ, while propping Romney up as the lone savior of America and conservatism.
Likewise, Glenn Beck has spent the last several weeks disparaging Newt as a “progressive” (according to Beck, if one does not agree with Ron Paul’s strict prescriptions for domestic libertarianism, then they are a progressive).
Respected foreign policy expert Elliot Abrams wrote a scathing piece about Newt for National Review, accusing the Presidential candidate of “misleading” the public on his relationship with Reagan. (Check out this PJ post for a rebuttal to Abrams account).
During Newt Gingrich’s victory speech in South Carolina last night, he stated:
I want to go into every neighborhood of every ethnic background in every part of the country and say to people very simply, if you want your children to have a life of dependency and food stamps, then you have a candidate as Barack Obama. If you want your children to have a life of independency and pay checks, you have a candidate that’s Newt Gingrich.
This right here is the essence of the difference between conservative and liberal values. Conservatives are against big government entitlements, not because we do not care about the poor and the needy (as so many liberals contend), but because these types of programs destroy individual initiative and responsibility, and leave people worse off.
Even liberal Bob Beckel agrees, as he said on The Five a few days ago:
We liberals made a terrible mistake going back 30 years ago. We made a dependent society because we thought we were doing the right thing. We had things like public housing, and we had welfare payments. And all that bred dependency. And it was our responsibility, and we did it for the right reasons, and we need to change that.
If Newt takes this message to the American people like only he can, he can win the Presidency.
The fake email reads:
“Newt Gingrich released the following statement regarding reports that he forced ex-wife Marianne Gingrich to terminate a pregnancy”
I have said many times, including on the debate stage last night, that I am not a perfect human being and I have made mistakes in my life. This was one of them. I have had to apologize to God and to seek reconciliation. The fact is, I am not proud of some decisions I have made or actions I have taken, but I believe in the power of redemption and I trust the voters of South Carolina do as well.
Tonight on Sean Hannity’s Fox News program, Sarah Palin said this about the upcoming primary in South Carolina:
“If I had to vote in order to keep it going, I would vote for Newt.”
She did not formally endorse the former speaker, like her husband Todd, but this is still a big deal. Sarah Palin is still one of the most influential conservative public figures in America, and perhaps this can give Newt a much-needed boost heading into SC.
I have a feeling Newt is not finished, even if he does not finish first in South Carolina. He is waiting for Perry and Santorum to drop out so he can consolidate the conservative/anti-Romney vote. If that happens, he has a decent chance.
According to a South Carolina InsiderAdvantage poll, Newt Gingrich is surging once again:
The poll of 726 registered voters was completed Wednesday night and offered the following results:
Romney — 23 percent
Gingrich — 21 percent
Santorum — 14 percent
Paul — 13 percent
Huntsman — 7 percent
Perry — 5 percent
I just started reading William L. Shirer’s “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich“–written in 1950– and I was immediately taken aback by something written at the end of the forward, which seems mighty prescient.
In our new age of terrifying, lethal gadgets, which supplanted so swiftly the old one, the first great aggressive war, if it should come, will be launched by suicidal little madmen pressing an electronic button.
Mr. Shirer might as well have mentioned Ahmadinejad by name.
I wonder what Mr. Shirer would think if he were told that less than 70 years after World War II, another madman–one who denies the existence of the Holocaust–would be threatening to wipe out the Jews, and that there would be people (Ron Paul) who thought we should not prevent this madman from acquiring nuclear weapons.
He probably would not believe it.
Washington D.C. taxi drivers have been dealing with traffic jams, caused by Occupy D.C. protesters, for several weeks. PJTV’s Richard Pollock recently interviewed this handicapped, foreign taxi driver about his thoughts on the occupy movement, and his answers are truly remarkable.
Now, if we could only change the constitution, so foreigners could be president…
Newt Gingrich has been very vocal in recent days, criticizing Ron Paul’s “dangerous” foreign policy.
Ron Paul has responded, calling Newt a “chicken hawk”, and also saying:
“You know when Newt Gingrich was called to service in the 1960s during the Vietnam era, guess what he thought about danger? he chickened out on that.”
When presented with this quote, Newt responded:
“What he said has about the same amount of accuracy as the newsletters he says he never wrote.”
I just got back from England and France with my father and brother.
Here are some pictures I took with my camera that I though were worthwhile to share with you…
That is a picture of the front page of The Daily Telegraph – a London newspaper– from December 30th, 2011. The story titled “Scandal of NHS ‘production line’,” is about about the massive problems with their National Health Service. If you are near a liberal, you might want to invite them into the room to share this story with them.
From the article:
The number of NHS patients returning to hospital in an emergency within a month of being discharged has increased by more than 75% over the past decade, official figures disclose. Ministers accused hospitals of treating patients “like parts on a production line” after figures suggested that hundreds of thousands of people every year were sent home before they had recovered…The figures prompted allegations that patients were being “hurried through the system” so waiting list targets could be met…Critics say government targets, such as the demand that patients be admitted to hospital for treatment within 18 weeks of seeing their GP, mean that hospital managers are pressured into releasing patients early to make beds available.
To my liberal friends, this is what universal healthcare looks like, and this is what American healthcare will resemble if Obamacare is not repealed.
This is a picture I took of a monument at the American cemetery in Normandy, where the allied forces landed on D-Day to liberate Europe from the Nazis. In case you can’t read it, it’s a quote by General Mark Clark:
If ever proof were needed that we fought for a cause and not for conquest it could be found in these cemeteries. Here was our only conquest: All we asked…was enough…soil in which to bury our gallant dead.
Very moving. And it is as true today, in our military interventions, as it was then.
Here is a picture I took at the Winston Churchill War Room Museum in London, which chronicles Winston Churchill’s life, with an obvious focus on WWII. Now, who does this description of Winston Churchill remind you of?
I’m not saying that Newt Gingrich is the next Winston Churchill, but the similarities are undeniable.
Here is a picture I took on a sidewalk in London. Apparently, the incoherent, uncleanly occupy movement has gone international.
No pictures but still notable…
While in my hotel room I was watching a report about the Israel/Palestinian conflict on Russia Today, in which the anchor stated that of all the people Israel killed in its war with Gaza at the end of 2008, 80% were civilians. Then, a Gaza “expert” was interviewed who said the number was closer to 90%. This is absolutely false, as the number of Palestinian civilians killed in the conflict was well below 50%, as Alan Dershowitz has reported. Of course, every single Palestinian civilian that was killed is a tragedy, but the fault lies with Hamas who deliberately hides in civilian heavy populations.
People say that Israel is ineffective at public relations, as much of the world sympathizes with the Palestinians instead of Israel. But how is Israel supposed to compete with lies and defamations? This is what Israel deals with all over the world on a daily basis.
My Normandy tour guide told me that if anyone in France has a good business idea, it makes no sense to pursue it there, as it is too difficult to succeed because of all the onerous government regulations. My dear liberal friends, are you listening?
National Review Online came out with this scathing piece against a Newt Gingrich candidacy. This is a big deal, as National Review is arguably the most respected and influential conservative outlet in America.
National Review adds on to a long list of conservative icons who are staunchly against a Gingrich candidacy…
- Ann Coulter has written numerous articles lambasting the former speaker.
- Charles Krauthammer believes he’s undisciplined and an unserious candidate (at least he thought).
- Michael Savage has offered Newt $1 million to drop out of the race.
- Glenn Beck says he might vote for Ron Paul as a 3rd party candidate.
- Bill Bennett has been critical of Newt for months.
- George Will wrote a harsh piece about Newt in the Washington Post.
This is a very diverse group of conservatives.
Some of you will surely say, “Who cares what Glenn Beck and Michael Savage say? They’re crazy!” Perhaps.
Others might say, “Who cares what George Will, Charles Krauthammer or Bill Bennett say? They’re Washington Insider/ Establishment types!” Perhaps.
And of course, you can’t really pigeon hole Ann Coulter. She’s all over the place. But you can’t deny that she’s very influential, smart and conservative.
So the big question…why do they all hate Newt?
I have written about my opinion that Newt would be a great President…But the fact that so many influential and respected conservatives dislike Newt, I have to admit, is a serious problem.
What do you think?
Yesterday, in an article for the NY Times, wherein he criticized Newt for calling the Palestinian’s an “invented people,” Thomas Friedman wrote:
I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby.
Unbelievable. This is the type of statement one would expect to find in The Israel Lobby, by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, a book Alan Dershowitz described as a “hate-filled screed against Jewish participation in American politics.” With this statement, Friedman is perpetuating the nasty anti-Semitic lie that the Jews control Congress, and by extension the world. If only!
Friedman then went on to say:
The real test is what would happen if Bibi tried to speak at, let’s say, the University of Wisconsin. My guess is that many students would boycott him and many Jewish students would stay away, not because they are hostile but because they are confused.
I hate when commentators like Friedman put forward his type of misleading idea; that the younger Jewish community as a whole is drifting away from Israel. That is not the whole truth. I’m a Jewish student at a University and I would not stay away if Prime Minister Netanyahu came to speak at my school. I would gladly cheer him. So what “Jewish students” are Mr. Friedman referring to? Obviously, he’s talking about liberal ones. Every poll shows that Republicans are more supportive of Israel than Democrats, by a wide margin. That liberal Jews would stay away from a speech by Prime Minister Netanyahu, says more about them than it does about Israel.
And all this says a lot about Thomas Friedman.
Glenn Beck has officially gone off the deep end. This is very sad, as I have written about my admiration for Beck’s unwavering support of Israel.
Beck said this about Newt Gingrich on Judge Napolitano’s show:
“This man is a progressive. He knows he’s a progressive. He doesn’t have a problem with being a progressive…So if you’ve got a big government progressive [in Gingrich] or a big government progressive in Obama, one in Newt Gingrich, one in Obama, ask yourself this Tea Party. Is it about Obama’s race? Because that’s what it appears to be to me. If you’re against him but you’re for this guy, it must be about race.”
This quote is misguided and inaccurate for several reasons. First of all, to state that Obama and Gingrich are so identical that the Tea Party must be racist for supporting the latter and not the former, is laughable. Plus, Beck is making the same accusations about the Tea Party as the left! Does Beck honestly believe that Newt’s record and ideology is in any way similar to Obama’s? Here are just a few minor ways in which Newt is starkly different than Obama.
- As Speaker of the House Newt helped balance the budget and reform welfare.
- Newt would appoint John Bolton as his Secretary of State. Does Beck think he would be better than Clinton?
- As soon as Newt became President, America would become dramatically more supportive of Israel. Does Beck dispute this?
- Newt would work to repeal Obamacare and the onerous Dodd-Frank banking regulation law.
- Newt doesn’t think we should raise taxes…on anybody!
To ignore these substantive differences between Newt and Obama is to ignore reality.
Beck then said that he would vote for Ron Paul as a third party candidate instead of Newt in a general election. This is unexplainable to me. Beck has spent a great portion of the last year supporting Israel with moving programs and documentaries, culminating with his rally in Jerusalem. Why would Beck support the only Republican candidate in the field who would leave Israel to the wolves in the form of Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah? Newt is the only candidate who is not scared to speak the truth about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, accurately calling the Palestinians an “invented people.”
Yes, it is true that Newt took some un-conservative positions when he left office in the late 90s. However, he undoubtedly is driven by much more of a small government philosophy than Obama.
Beck, you’re nothing to me now. You’re not a brother. You’re not a friend. I don’t want to know you or what you do. I don’t want to see at the hotels…(OK, maybe that’s a little extreme, but you get the point).
*And by the way, If Beck said the same thing about Romney, I would be just as upset.
The Romney campaign just released this very effective ad, that attacks Newt for his boneheaded criticism of the Paul Ryan Medicare plan earlier this year on Meet the Press.
My only question is why did the Romney team include Pat Buchanan in the ad? They couldn’t find any other conservatives who are critical of Newt that are not Israel bashers? Criticism from Pat Buchanan will not resonate with most Republicans.
The Romney Team, clearly worried about Newt’s surge in the polls, has decided to step up it’s attacks against the former Speaker.
Chris Christie (Romney supporter): “When you look at candidates say, ‘Is this the kind of person who’s always going to make me proud in the Oval Office and never have to worry will embarrass America? That I’ll never have to worry will do something that will just make me ashamed?’ [Romney] just won’t.”
Former New Hampshire Governor John Sununu (Romney supporter): “The off-the-cuff comment, for example, that Gingrich throws out on occasion is a reflection on the off-the-cuff thinking that he goes through to deal with issues…That is not what you want in a commander in chief.”
Former Senator Jim Talent of Missouri (Romney supporter): “He is not a reliable or trustworthy leader…He also says outrageous things that come out of nowhere, and come at a time when they most undermine the conservative agenda….This election is going to be about him, and that’s exactly what the Democrats want.”
Today, Newt Gingrich met with Donald Trump in New York. You can watch the video of their post-meeting press conference here.
Defending the idea of Donald Trump hosting a GOP Presidential debate, Newt stated:
“If we’re trying to figure out how to create jobs–I think one of the differences between my party and the other party is we actually go to people who know how to create jobs, to figure out how to create jobs.”
Responding to Newt’s defense of Trump, a Ron Paul campaign spokesman said:
“We agree, of course, with former Speaker Gingrich — this is a country of people of enormous talent. Those who deliver thousands of babies like Dr. Paul and those who spend their time focusing on promoting themselves for profit. We even have those who lobby, but don’t call it such because, as they say, they can make $60,000 per speech. While those of us in the Paul camp might disagree with Newt Gingrich about whether Donald Trump is the right man to host a serious political debate, we do agree New York is a wonderful place to go at Christmas. We are sure two average Americans like Speaker Gingrich and Donald Trump will have a wonderful time picking out gifts for their wives. We suggest a place called Tiffany’s, we her it is quite nice this time of year and given their celebrity status they can probably get special deals and $500,000 lines of credit.”
The Republican Jewish Coalition has decided not to invite Ron Paul to their Presidential Candidates Forum in Washington D.C., December 7th, which is sure to focus on foreign policy and Israel. RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks stated, “He’s just so far outside of the mainstream of the Republican party and this organization.”
While I agree with with Mr. Brooks that Paul is too extreme, I think it is a mistake not to include him in the debate. This is the perfect opportunity for Paul’s misguided views on foreign policy, and specifically Israel, to be thoroughly challenged. In addition, it will be nice to have someone on stage who has a different view. Every candidate will surely agree that America must be a stalwart ally of Israel, and that Obama has been a lukewarm friend at best. Let’s see what Ron Paul thinks.
So far, the most notable criticism of Newt Gingrich has been that he is unelectable due to his heavy “baggage.” However, Rasmussen reports:
The Newt Gingrich surge has moved him to the top of the polls in Iowa, big gains in New Hampshire and now a two-point edge over President Obama in a hypothetical general election match-up.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters finds Gingrich attracting 45% of the vote while President Obama earns support from 43%. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.
The American presidency has changed dramatically over time. The founders meant for the president to be an executive, a unitary decision maker. However, since the advent of radio, television and mass communication, the presidency has developed into so much more. Today, whenever the president speaks there are dozens of cameras in his face. The president can schedule an address to the nation during prime time, and all the networks will cancel their programs and carry his speech.
Political Scientist Samuel Kernell described this new phenomenon as “Going Public,” wherein the president “promotes himself and his policies in Washington by appealing directly to the American public for support,” thereby “forcing compliance from fellow Washingtonians by going over their heads to enlist constituents’ pressure.”
The president is no longer someone who just makes decisions about the administration of government. The president, by way of mass media and his bully pulpit, has tremendous power to shape the public discourse about American governance and policy. The president, more than any of the legislators who actually make the law, has the extraordinary ability to speak directly to the American people. With this power, the president carries great legislative influence, as a charismatic and well-spoken individual can sway the public’s sentiment and create political conditions wherein his or her agenda is sure to be passed.
Ronald Reagan was very adept at “going public” and taking his case to the American people. Thus, he was known as “The Great Communicator” as he was able to explain his agenda in a clear and compelling way, which eased his tax reform through Congress. In addition, Reagan’s ability to speak to the hearts of the American people lifted an entire nation out of the malaise left behind by Jimmy Carter, and restored America to her greatness. Bill Clinton was a gifted communicator as well, and this was of great assistance during his presidency. The case is still open on Obama. He has staked his political life and agenda on convincing the American people that the Republicans only care about preserving tax breaks for the super rich to the detriment of the rest of the country. The election next year will determine his success.
With this in mind, it is clear that candidates such as Rick Perry and Herman Cain would be lousy presidents. Sure, they would probably make sound decisions and push a conservative agenda. However, that is not enough. It is not enough for Herman Cain to just “surround himself with experts” to advise him on the best course of action. We need a Republican president who is quick on his feet and well-versed in the political issues. We need a Republican president who can take his case to the American people. When the polls are 50/50 and Congress is not sure how to vote on a certain piece of legislation, we need a Republican president who can utilize his bully pulpit in a skillful manner to sway the American public.
We have already seen how difficult it is in this day and age to have a Republican president who is not articulate or quick on his feet. Whoever the next Republican presidential nominee is, we know he or she will be swimming up stream against a hostile main stream media, looking to undercut him or her at every opportunity. Do you trust Herman Cain or Rick Perry to adequately counter the onslaught of anti-Republican rhetoric that is sure to pervade the mainstream media? Can you count on Rick Perry or Herman Cain to answer spontaneous questions at a press conference in a coherent and effective manner?
When choosing among the GOP presidential contenders, primary voters should consider who will be the most effective advocate for conservative values.
From Fox News:
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has received the coveted endorsement of the highly influential Manchester Union Leader in New Hampshire, a boost for the 2012 Republican presidential candidate and a blow to rival Mitt Romney. The endorsement of the conservative newspaper’s editorial board places an exclamation point on Gingrich’s impressive surge from has-been GOP contender to frontrunner, and sets him apart as the new anti-Romney candidate among his competitors. “Newt Gingrich is by no means the perfect candidate. But Republican primary voters too often make the mistake of preferring an unattainable ideal to the best candidate who is actually running. In this incredibly important election, that candidate is Newt Gingrich,” the editorial board wrote in Sunday’s edition.
From the Weekly Standard:
Former CIA director R. James Woolsey and Robert McFarlane, national security adviser to President Reagan, have joined Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign as members of his national security advisory team. They’re the best known of the 10 men and two women who’ve signed up to advise Gingrich, many of them veterans of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations. In a statement introducing the group Tuesday, he refers to them as “this world class group of experts” on whom he’s relied “throughout my career.”
Hmmm…Where’s John Bolton?