Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Huckabee Going Off the Rails
Mike Huckabee joins Mitt Romney on my personal list of candidates for whom I would not vote even if the only alternative is Hillary Clinton (in which case I’ll just sit home and complain). Why?
1. From ImmigrationProfBlog:
The formerly “soft on immigration” Republican presidential candidates continue their moves toward the enforcement-only end of the spectrum. The Washington Times reports that former Arkansas Gov. Mike (Huck) Huckabee yesterday signed a pledge to enforce immigration laws and to make all undocumented immigarnts go home. The pledge, offered by immigration control advocacy group Numbers USA, commits Huckabee to oppose a new path to citizenship for undocumentyed immigrants and to reduce the number in the country through “attrition” by increased enforcement — something Huckabee said he will achieve through his nine-point immigration plan (which, as we reported here, was “borrowed” from the restrictionist Center for Immigration Studies.
Of course, if you read Huckabee’s plan, there’s nothing in there about the police state tactics that would be necessary to round up and send home 12 million people. So he’s decided to embrace an unachievable policy goal that will alienate the fastest growing segment of the voting population in hopes of pandering to the nativist right. On top of which, it almost certainly won’t work, see e.g. Michelle Malkin‘s shrill reaction:
He’s an open borders drag queen, and he’s piling on the make-up and jewels again to disguise his pro-illegal immigration record in time for the South Carolina primary.
2. Greg Sargent:
In an interview with Beliefnet.com, a religion Web site, Huck has just clarified his view that the Constitution should be amended to be brought in line with God’s will—and he directly equated homosexuality with bestiality.
Huck, in elaborating on his views that the Constitution should be subjected to Biblical standards, had just wrapped up a discussion of the fact that marriage has meant “a man and a woman in a relationship for life.” With this context firmly established, this exchange followed:
QUESTIONER: Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.
HUCKABEE: Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic.
That’s pretty clear cut. Changing the definition of marriage so it can mean “two men” or “two women” is equivalent to changing it to mean “a man and an animal.” No ambiguity here whatsoever.
More generally, the idea that the Constitution should be subjected to Biblical standards smacks of Christian Reconstructionism, which is pretty damn scary. as Vox Nova wrote:
What does bother me, though, is (what seems to be) Gov. Huckabee’s close relationship with Steven Hotze, Rick Scarborough, and Vision America.
I’ve been pretty clear, I think, about my disdain for the tedious and ignorant “the theocrats are coming!” thing that is so popular in some circles. ... But, as I see it, Hotze, Scarborough, and Vision America really do have troubling and misguided views about faith and the political order. We’re not talking Fr. Neuhaus’s critique of the naked public square here, or John Courtney Murray’s We Hold These Truths.
Now, I’m confident (should I be, though?) that Gov. Huckabee’s own views are more thoughtful and sound than those of the so-called Christian Reconstructionists. But, can anyone doubt that, were Huckabee to be the nominee, these people and their views ... which would be, I’m confident, regarded as deeply creepy and troubling by most Americans — would be at the center of the campaign? (It would be political malpractice for Huckabee’s opponent, or opponents, not to exploit his connection with these people.)
I am, of course, pro-life and fairly conservative. I agree entirely with those who insist that religious faith has a role to play in politics and policy. I don’t see “theocracy” looming behind efforts to, say, protect unborn children from partial-birth abortions. But, I do worry about Vision America (not that they could actually achieve their aims, but that they will become associated in the public mind with *my* aims).
Also troubling to me - and, I hope, to other Catholics — is the fact that Gov. Huckabee apparently has no difficulty appearing with, and preaching at the church of, Pastor John Hagee, a virulent and ignorant anti-Catholic polemecist who has, to put it mildly, not yet got the word about “Evangelicals and Catholics Together.”
For those unfamiliar with Vision America and other Christian Reconstructionists, here’s what Father Richard John Neuhaus had to say about it:
Reconstructionism—sometimes called Theonomy or Dominion Theology—is a bastard form of Calvinism contending that the American constitutional order must be replaced by a new order based on “Bible Law.”
And, again:
Gary North says that theonomy “did not exist twenty years ago.” North, Greg Bahnsen, and Rousas J. Rushdoony are the chief architects of the movement, and the greatest of these is Rushdoony. Some date theonomy as a movement from the publication of Rushdoony’s Thy Kingdom Come in 1970. ...
For all the infighting and usually breathless announcements of new insights into “Bible law,” however, the basic proposals of Reconstructionism are clear enough. ... Most other Christians, for instance, are conventionally given to saying that the Bible contains “no blueprint for the right ordering of society.” That is precisely what the theonomists deny. In fact, one set of books is called “The Biblical Blueprint Series,” and it is nothing if not specific. The determining proposition is that the Mosaic law given at Sinai was not just for Israel but is God’s design for all nations of all times. In fact, Israel has been definitively “excommunicated” from the universal covenant. (Not incidentally, the usually strong Evangelical support for the State of Israel is very much called into question among those who have come under the influence of Reconstructionism.) As most of the proponents of this viewpoint do not hesitate to say, a theonomic social order is a theocratic social order, and a theocratic social order is a Christian social order. (Some theonomists prefer “Christocracy” to theocracy.)
Bible law requires a radical decentralization of government under the rule of the righteous. Private property rights, especially for the sake of the family, must be rigorously protected, with very limited interference by the state and the institutional church. Restitution, including voluntary slavery, should be an important element of the criminal justice system. A strong national defense should be maintained until the whole world is “reconstructed” (which may be a very long time). Capital punishment will be employed for almost all the capital crimes listed in the Old Testament, including adultery, homosexual acts, apostasy, incorrigibility of children (meaning late teenagers), and blasphemy, along with murder and kidnapping. There will be a cash, gold-based economy with limited or no debt. These are among the specifics broadly shared by people who associate themselves with the theonomic viewpoint. ...
Gary North has argued that death by stoning is a necessary part of the Mosaic code. He notes that stoning has a number of other things in its favor. Stones are plentiful and cheap, no single blow can be traced to any one thrower (thus reducing guilt feelings), group stone-throwing underscores collective responsibility for crime, and the practice usefully reminds us of God’s crushing the head of Satan, as mentioned in Genesis 3.
Stoning? Anyway, Neuhaus continues:
A reconstructed world ruled by future Rushdoonyites will not, needless to say, be democratic. Rushdoony is straightforward in condemning democracy as a “heresy.” ... Theonomists have suggested that, in a reconstructed world, there might be “sanctuaries” for non-theonomists, along the lines of Jewish ghettos in the middle ages. The prospect of such tolerance is not likely to relieve the anxieties of those deemed to be outside the circle of the righteous.
Do go read the whole thing, especially for its brilliant critique of the theological underpinnings of Reconstructionism.
In the interests of fairness, let’s point to a defense of Reconstructionism from a Rushdoony’s website. Personally, I find the defense itself pretty scary.
Just like Ron Paul needs to disavow the racists and whack jobs in his entourage, Huckabee needs to clarify his relationship with the Reconstructionsts. Right now.
3. Eugene Volokh points out that the Beliefnet interview demonstrates a lack of historical accuracy on Huckabee’s part:
From a Beliefnet interview:
And the same thing would be true of marriage. Marriage has historically, as long as there’s been human history, meant a man and a woman in a relationship for life. Once we change that definition, then where does it go from there?
Christians and modern Jews do not approve of polygamy, but surely anyone who believes in the Bible has to acknowledge that it attests to the widespread existence of marriage between a man and multiple women. (Nor is Huckabee just saying “a man and a woman” as a slip for “heterosexual”; immediately after this, he goes on to distinguish “a man and three women.")…
I had thought I’d made this clear in the original post, but let me repeat it: I’m objecting to Huckabee’s “historical[]” claims, and saying they’re inconsistent with the Bible’s own account of history. I am not responding to Huckabee’s moral claims; I am criticizing his attempt to buttress his moral claims with what strike me as factually unsound (and Biblically contradicted) assertions about what has been the case throughout “human history.”
Posted on Thursday, January 17 2008 | Permalink | 6 Comments
Not only would I sit out the election if Huckabee we
How about this:
CAGW Names Rep. John Murtha Porker of the Month
Washington, D.C. - Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today named Representative John Murtha (D-Pa.) the May Porker of the Month for throwing a temper tantrum and threatening his colleagues over a challenge to a $23 million pet project in the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008.
Rep. Murtha became infuriated by Rep. Mike Rogers’ (R-Mich.) motion to challenge his earmark for the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) in Johnstown, Pa. According to The Politico, Rep. Murtha, who is not on the Intelligence Committee but does chair the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, confronted Rep. Rogers on the floor of the House and threatened to remove both any of his earmark requests in the defense appropriations bill and any other earmark “now and forever.” Rep. Rogers responded, “This is not the way we do things here and is that supposed to make me afraid of you?” To which Rep. Murtha arrogantly replied, “That’s the way I do it!”
Rep. Murtha also assailed Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) for voting with Rep. Rogers against the NDIC during the Intelligence Committee markup of the bill. Rep. Murtha threatened a Boeing project in Rep. Tiahrt’s district.
Rep. Rogers submitted a resolution charging that Rep. Murtha violated a House rule which forbids members from blocking earmarks based on how a colleague votes. The resolution seeks a formal reprimand from the House. Rep. Rogers said, “This is exactly why Americans are disgusted with out of control federal spending. In order to restore the faith of the American people in Congress, we must do better. We can’t allow members to be threatened and intimidated when they stand up for hard-working taxpayers’ money.”
The Hill reported that Rep. Murtha also skirted the rules by submitting his required earmark certification late. The deadline was March 23, but Rep. Murtha’s letter was only sent on May 1, the day before the bill mark up.
The Murtha outburst exemplifies how earmarks corrupt the legislative process. The NDIC, which is funded through the Drug Enforcement Administration, was cited last year by the House Government Reform Committee as “an expensive and duplicative use of scarce federal drug enforcement resources.” CAGW’s 2007 Prime Cuts and the President’s budget both recommended that the NDIC should be eliminated. But it will probably be funded, not based on merit, but out of fear of Rep. Murtha’s power as an appropriations cardinal.
Rep. Murtha sees Congress as a place where threats and power plays control spending decisions. While pushing the pork-filled 2006 defense appropriations bill through the House last year, Rep. Murtha unleashed his money-hungry wrath upon his colleagues, “If you vote against this bill, you won't have any input at all the next time.” The congressman barrels through legislation while inserting whatever he can to serve himself and his district. Since 2005, Rep. Murtha has obtained a total of $26,877,250 in pork.
Rep. Murtha claims that when submitting an earmark he asks, “Is this worthwhile not only to your district but to the country?” However, it is difficult to ascertain what the country gets out of pork projects such as the $194,000 he secured for the construction of a new community center in Green County, Pa. in 2005.
For filling important intelligence and defense bills with pork and threatening anyone that challenges his authority and arrogance, CAGW names Rep. John Murtha its May 2007 Porker of the Month.
Citizens Against Government Waste is the nation’s largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government. Porker of the Month is a dubious honor given to lawmakers, government officials, and political candidates who have shown a blatant disregard for the interests of taxpayers.
YOur beef is with the NYT
This is the original quote from my post
'PORKBUSTERS UPDATE: New York Times: The Pork King keeps his crown
New regulations make it easier to track pork and match it with campaign contributions- really pointing out teh true scope of Murtha's piggishness
LOL, still in denial Pegbot???
How about an article from 2006's WSJ??
Mr. Murtha has also been front and center in the controversy over earmarks, the individual portions of pork members of Congress often secretly secure for their districts or favored constituents. Mr. Murtha is the ranking Democratic member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and for the past three years has been the House's top recipient of defense industry cash. Few in Washington are surprised that his lobbyist brother, Robert "Kit" Murtha, was until his retirement this summer an enormously successful "earmark specialist" for the Beltway firm KSA Consulting. In recent years, Kit Murtha brought in a mother lode of earmarks for at least 16 defense manufacturers with business before the Appropriations Committee.
Last year, the Los Angeles Times reported that "most of KSA's defense contractor clients hired the firm in hopes of securing funding from Rep. Murtha's subcommittee, according to lobbying records and interviews. And most retained the firm after Kit Murtha became a senior partner in 2002." Kit Murtha told the Times that he saw Rep. Murtha only infrequently, but said the congressman knew he was a KSA lobbyist. "I don't think that influences him," Kit said of his brother. "I certainly would hope not."
Befor you admired the jobs he was getting for his district, now you deny he's a corrupt pol just like all the rest ( not even mentioning ABSACM )
BTW, he has recognized the success of the surge, have you???
LOL, using your logic, the dems are in for a fall this year then.
They campaigned on a platform of ending pork and are running over each other to feed at the trough
But, you like it for Murtha because he's supplying jobs to his constituents. It's only horrible when the Reps partake, right???
That's liberal ethics in action
I posted this before:
It's completely legal and it's NOT a line item veto.
The earmarks aren't legislated
An Open Letter To President Bush: End the Era of Earmarks
December 21, 2007 10:46 AM
Porkbusters is proud to be a signatory to the open letter to President Bush below. If your organization or publication would like to be listed as supporting this effort, please email bear -at- truthlaidbear -dot- com.
--------------------------------------
Mr. President:
This past week, Congress passed an omnibus spending bill that will soon be presented for your signature. While it is consistent with the total budget targets your administration has set, the 3,417 pages of the bill and associated reports are bloated by more than 9,000 earmarks which were subjected to little or no review during the scant 24 hours between the publishing of the bill text and the House voting to pass it. When combined with the more than 2,000 earmarks in the Defense Appropriations Bill this Congress has churned out over 11,000 earmarks this year. The vast majority of these earmarks do not even appear in the legislative text, but rather are buried in the committee reports that accompany the bill, further removing them from proper review and scrutiny. While the total number of earmarks is down compared to record highs and there is increased transparency, there are still far too many to be effectively vetted.
The rushed way in which Congress passed the omnibus - one of the largest pieces of legislation ever considered - made a mockery of our legislative process, and Congress itself bears the responsibility and shame for that. But you have the power to send a message both to Congress and the American people that the waste and corrupting influence of earmarks will not be tolerated. A December 18 legal analysis by the Congressional Research Service concluded that "because the language of committee reports do not meet the procedural requirements of Article I of the Constitution -- specifically, bicameralism and presentment - they are not laws and, therefore, are not legally binding on executive agencies... Given both the implied legal and constitutional authority as well as the long-standing accepted process of Presidents, it appears that a President can, if he so chooses, issue an executive order with respect to earmarks contained solely in committee reports and not in any way incorporated into the legislative text."
On December 20, you stated that you were "instructing the budget director to review options for dealing with the wasteful spending in the omnibus bill." We applaud you for this leadership, and ask that you follow through by issuing an executive order formally directing all Federal agencies to ignore non-legislative earmarks tucked into committee reports and statements of managers. Such an action is within your Constitutional powers, and would strike a blow for fiscal responsibility now while setting a valuable precedent for the future.
Tell Congress and the American public that the era of earmarks is over, and that the Congressional "favor factory" which mints earmarks is closed. The American taxpayer will applaud such an action, as will the many honest legislators in Congress who are trying to fight the broken and corrupt appropriations machine. We hope that you embrace this opportunity, and thank you for your leadership on this issue.
Sincerely,
Alabama Policy Institute
American Conservative Union
American Values
Americans for Prosperity
Americans for Tax Reform
Calvert Institute for Policy Research
Citizens Against Government Waste
Club for Growth
Commonwealth Foundation
Eagle Forum
Evergreen Freedom Foundation
Family Research Council
Freedom Works
Illinois Policy Institute
Larry Kudlow, Kudlow & Company, LLC
The National Tax Limitation Committee
National Taxpayers Union
Porkbusters.org
Taxpayers for Common Sense
typical
What are the negatives?
You rail on and on about the deficit and mortgaging our children's future and when someone is actually attempting to do the one thing that will help with all the pork- your sceptical
Knee jerk Bush hatred
I have read the background, and he is within his rights to do what he proposes.
Again, with the knee jerk response. He's not writing any new legislation.
The whole point is to expose the earmarks the light of day- there will MUCH lees pork when that happens
It's completely constitutional
Just the answer I expected from you
How will the libs on the board feel if Bush actually goes through with his executive order to eliminate all earmarks
I can't conceive of anyone who would be against something that would only have positive results
The republican revolution was about smaller ethical govt- never happened
The dems in 2006 ran on the same principles and we can now see that they just want to feed from the trough and don't give a damn about us or our future
Will the libs support Bush here?
It's the only way this type of corruption will end
IT’S NOT JUST THE LENDERS There has been plenty of talk about “predatory lending,” but “predatory borrowing” may have been the bigger problem. As much as 70 percent of recent early payment defaults had fraudulent misrepresentations on their original loan applications, according to one recent study. The research was done by BasePoint Analytics, which helps banks and lenders identify fraudulent transactions; the study looked at more than three million loans from 1997 to 2006, with a majority from 2005 to 2006. Applications with misrepresentations were also five times as likely to go into default.
Many of the frauds were simple rather than ingenious. In some cases, borrowers who were asked to state their incomes just lied, sometimes reporting five times actual income; other borrowers falsified income documents by using computers. Too often, mortgage originators and middlemen looked the other way rather than slowing down the process or insisting on adequate documentation of income and assets. As long as housing prices kept rising, it didn’t seem to matter.
In other words, many of the people now losing their homes committed fraud. And when a mortgage goes into default in its first year, the chance is high that there was fraud in the initial application, especially because unemployment in general has been low during the last two years.
NYT
Should we bail these people out? They singed the papers, fully aware of the terms.
Te;; the Pegbot, she thinks it's great that Murtha leads the pork parade
A Pushback Against The EO
Some lessons take a while to fully sink into the consciousness, and apparently the lesson of 2006 still hasn't quite finished doing so. Republican as well as Democratic appropriators have flooded the White House with demands that he drop the idea of issuing an executive order to defund the non-legislative earmarks in the omnibus spending bill. Democrats warn of year-long war with the Bush administration, while Republicans complain that they need pork to win elections:
The leaders of the Senate Appropriations Committee are calling on President Bush to back away from threats to kill funding for lawmakers’ pet projects.
The pre-emptive warnings from the top Democrat and Republican on the panel are the clearest signs yet that President Bush could face a bipartisan backlash if he uses his executive authority to wipe out the more than $7 billion in earmarks. ....
The executive order would generate enormous support from fiscal hawks, but would roil already poor relations between the White House and the Democratic Congress — not to mention infuriate many Republicans touting the projects to their constituents.
No less than an authority on pork than Senator Robert Byrd (D-Robert Byrd's West Virginia) calls Bush a hypocrite for defunding the earmarks. Byrd points out that Bush didn't issue an EO for Republican budgets, and argues that means he shouldn't do so for Democrats, either. However, that's the pot calling the kettle black. Democrats won the election in 2006 by promising to reform an out-of-control earmarking process, and instead broke the very rules they passed a year ago in airdropping them into conference reports to frustrate transparency.
Republicans aren't covering themselves in glory, either. Thad Cochran (R-MS) has lobbied hard for the White House to respect Congress' work in violating its own ethics rules. Cochran wants to protect the pork by arguing that throwing earmarks into the report language makes legislation more efficient. It also makes it much easier to hide the earmarks and their sponsors, and then to draw lines between the pork and the contributions politicians receive from their beneficiaries.
Congress clearly will not reform itself. Neither party shows any inclination to follow even improved rules that only enhance the transparency of earmarking instead of eliminating it. Indeed, leaders of both parties brag about the efficiency and fairness of opacity and rulebreaking.
When breaking the rules becomes a virtue among Congressional leadership, why should the President choose comity over fiscal responsibility, and collegiality over clean government? Press President Bush to do what Congress' leadership cannot -- end the Capitol Hill pork barbecue. You can make the difference. Call 202-456-1111 and politely explain why the President should issue the EO, or e-mail the staff at comments@whitehouse.gov.
We know who sortagreen will be voting for now:
Barack Obama and Israel
By Ed Lasky
The ascent of Barack Obama from state senator in Illinois to a leading contender for the Presidential nomination in the span of just a few years is remarkable. Especially in light of a noticeably unremarkable record -- a near-blank slate of few accomplishments and numerous missed votes.
However, in one area of foreign policy that concerns millions of Americans, he does have a record and it is a particularly troubling one. For all supporters of the America-Israel relationship there is enough information beyond the glare of the klieg lights to give one pause. In contrast to his canned speeches filled with "poetry" and uplifting aphorisms and delivered in a commanding way, behind the campaign façade lies a disquieting pattern of behavior.
One seemingly consistent them running throughout Barack Obama's career is his comfort with aligning himself with people who are anti-Israel advocates. This ease around Israel animus has taken various forms. As Obama has continued his political ascent, he has moved up the prestige scale in terms of his associates. Early on in his career he chose a church headed by a former Black Muslim who is a harsh anti-Israel advocate and who may be seen as tinged with anti-Semitism. This church is a member of a denomination whose governing body has taken a series of anti-Israel actions.
As his political fortunes and ambition climbed, he found support from George Soros, multibillionaire promoter of groups that have been consistently harsh and biased critics of the American-Israel relationship.
Obama's soothing and inspiring oratory sometimes vanishes when he talks of the Middle East. Indeed, his off-the-cuff remarks have been uniformly taken by supporters of Israel as signs that the inner Obama does not truly support Israel despite what his canned speeches and essays may contain.
Now that Obama has become a leading Presidential candidate, he has assembled a body of foreign policy advisers who signal that a President Obama would likely have an approach towards Israel radically at odds with those of previous Presidents (both Republican and Democrat). A group of experts collected by the Israeli liberal newspaper Haaretz deemed him to be the candidate likely to be least supportive of Israel. He is the candidate most favored by the Arab-American community.
Joining Trinity United Community Church
When Obama moved to Chicago and became a community organizer, he found it expedient to choose a Christian church to join. Even though his father and stepfather were both Muslims and he attended a Muslim school while living in Indonesia, suspicions based on his days as a child are overheated and unfair. Still, his full name alone conveys the biographical fact that he has some elements of a Muslim background.
Saul Alinsky, whose philosophy infused community organizing in Chicago, emphasized the importance of churches as a basis for organizing. There are literally hundreds of churches on the South Side of Chicago that Obama could have chosen from. He selected one that was headed by Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Junior. The anti-Israel rants of this minister have been well chronicled. Among the gems:
The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for almost 40 years now. It took a divestment campaign to wake the business community up concerning the South Africa issue. Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community up and to wake Americans up concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.
Jeremiah Wright, Jr.
Pastor Wright is a supporter of Louis Farrakhan (who called Judaism a "gutter religion" and depicted Jews as "bloodsuckers") and traveled with him to visit Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi, archenemy of Israel's and a terror supporter. Most recently, as head of the UN Security CouncilGaddafi prevented condemnation of attacks against Israel. As Kyle-Anne Shriver noted,
The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan received the "Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Lifetime Achievement Trumpeteer" Award at the 2007 Trumpet Gala at the United Church of Christ.
Wright routinely compares Israel to apartheid South Africa and considers blacks "The Chosen People". Wright sees his role not just as a religious counselor but also as an educator and political activist. As part of his schooling, he has posted the following tutorial:
Q: How many UN resolutions did Israel violate by 1992?
A: Over 65
42. Q: How many UN resolutions on Israel did America veto between 1972 and 1990?
A: 30+
43. Q: How much does the U.S. fund Israel a year?
A:$5 billion
48. Q: How many nuclear warheads does Israel have?
A: Over 400
49. Q: Has Israel every allowed UN weapon inspections?
A: No
50. Q: What percentage of the Palestinian territories are controlled by Israeli settlements?
A: 42%
51. Q: Is Israel illegally occupying Palestinian land?
A. Yes.
Tucker Carlson of MSNBC has called Pastor Wright a total hater and wondered why the ties that bind Obama to Wright have not been given greater scrutiny. Mickey Kaus of Slate has also wondered when the ties between Obama and Wright will receive more criticism, given Wright's seeming bigotry, which is in contrast to the soothing melody of unity that Obama has trumpeted on the campaign trail.
Some in the media have taken notice. The New York Times did have one front-page article on Wright by Jodi Kantor in which Wright was quoted as saying that should more information come to light about himself, "a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell". After the article came out Wright attacked Jodi Kantor, referring to her Jewish heritage in a way that might create discomfort.
This fear is why Pastor Wright was disinvited at the last minute from appearing with Obama when Obama announced his run for the Presidency. Wright admitted in a PBS interview that he understands this distancing from the Obama campaign since "he can't afford the Jewish support to wane or start questioning his allegiance to the Israel"
Wright has been disappeared by the campaign; Obama has replaced him with high profile white ministers who do not preach the racial exclusiveness and racial superiority that is a hallmark of Jeremiah Wright; however, they seem to share an anti-Israel bias.
Fortunately, bloggers and others have started to note the views of Pastor Wright (which also include an unhealthy does of racial exclusiveness, in Tucker Carlson's words) and . Finally these views may be crossing over to major media outlets. Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen published a recent column that criticized the award to Louis Farrakhan of the Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award -- an award that supposedly was granted to a man who "truly epitomized greatness". As Cohen noted, Farrakhan is not only a race-baiter but also an anti-Semite and a promoter of anti-Semitism. He falsely accused Jews of cooperating with Hitler and helping him create the Third Reich, has slandered Jews by his insistence that Jews have played an inordinate role in victimizing African-Americans (he has also called Jews "bloodsuckers"). Cohen questions why Obama has stayed steadfast in his allegiance to Pastor Wright over the years.
Obama has called Wright his spiritual mentor, his moral compass and his sounding board. He was the man who gave Obama the term, "The Audacity of Hope" after all. He was also the man who told Obama that there are more black men in prison then in colleges -- a statement that Obama parroted until he was told that it was false. What other "facts" has Wright taught Obama? Has he taught Obama to blame 9/11 on America because of our foreign policy?
Nevertheless, an Obama spokesman told the New York Times he is proud of his pastor and his church.The church also is the largest recipient of Obama's charitable donations. The pastor married Obama and his wife Michelle and baptized his two daughters. Obama has shown continued allegiance to a man who preaches racial exclusiveness, the superiority of black values over white middle-class values, and whose teaching contains anti-Israel diatribes. All these are sharply at variance with what Obama himself preaches on the campaign trail.
One should also note that the governing body of the United Church of Christ has taken a series of anti-Israel actions over the years. A broad coalition of Jewish groups have rebuked the Church for these actions.
Has Obama, the most famous and prestigious member of the Church and an inspiring orator who can move millions, taken steps to work with his church to moderate its anti-Israel invective? No.
He has been honored repeatedly by the church and has been its keynote speaker at various national assemblies. Has he called for change in the anti-Israel approach of the church? No.
For those who claim that Obama is the next JFK (an absurd claim and an insult to a revered President that was skewered recently) he is certainly not a Profile in Courage.
David Axelrod is Obama's chief political adviser, he is also the man who always comes out to explain that Obama (the master orator) did not really mean some of the offensive off-the-cuff statements he has made about Israel on the campaign trail (see below). Axelrod has also come out with the typical bland statements that Obama does not agree with all the things that Wright says and does. This is a lame defense.
Recall, this is a church and a pastor who Obama has relied upon to shape his views, to be his sounding board; the church is the largest recipient of his charity dollars; he proudly states that he admires the church and Jeremiah Wright, Junior. He prayed with Wright before he announced his candidacy for President. He is a beacon for Obama.
If a white candidate belonged to a church where the minister promoted an anti-black, anti-Semitic theology he would be roundly subject to criticism (assuming his candidacy would even be viable in the face of this background). Why should Obama get a pass?
George Soros
As Obama took steps toward the United States Senate he found a very powerful sugar daddy who would help fund his rise: George Soros. The billionaire hedge fund titan began supporting Obama very early -- as befits a legendary speculative investor always looking for opportunities. Obama coveted support from George Soros and Soros responded -- along with many family members and probably the Soros ring of wealthy donors. Soros even found a loophole that allowed him and assorted family members to exceed regular limits on campaign contributions.
Soros is also a fierce foe of Israel, for years funding groups that have worked against Israel. He is also a man who has flexed his political muscle as a major funder of Democrat candidates and a slew of so-called 527 groups that are active in pushing their agendas (a reliance on international institutions, defeat of Republicans, Bush-bashing, Israel-bashing). He has also openly proclaimed his desire to break the bonds between America and Israel and has written of his desire to erode political support for Israel.
Soros also called for concessions to Hamas -- a terror group that has killed many innocent people and that has called for the destruction of Israel. When this came to light, some leading Democrats personally denounced Soros; Obama had a spokesman issue this rather bland statement:
"Mr. Soros is entitled to his opinions," a campaign spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, said. "But on this issue he and Senator Obama disagree. Sound familiar? It is similar to the response the Soros campaign has given regarding Obama's close relationship with Pastor Wright.
This mild reproach did not prevent Obama from appearing a few weeks later with George Soros at a fundraiser.
Soros invests when he sees a large return as likely; he proverbially "broke the Bank of England" a few years ago speculating on the pound. Does he intend to break the American-Israel alliance?
"Blood on their hands"
Nor did anti-Semitism of another fundraiser seem to ruffle Obama or his campaign. A fundraiser was held at the home of Allan Houston, formerly of the Knicks, and a man who had previously very publicly proclaiming that Jews had Jesus' "blood on their hands" and were "stubborn". The American Jewish Congress protested and noted that Obama would not take any money from someone who had expressed the same sort of remarks about African-Americans. The very same spokesman who addressed the Soros controversy blithely dismissed the concerns of the Jews and said the campaign would not return the money or reject any of the contributions made by Houston.
Senator Obama's stands
Obama has been a Senator for only a couple of years. His supporters will point to a string of votes that are supportive of the American-Israel alliance (foreign aid, for example). These generally are not controversial and routinely pass by large margins, precisely because they support an ally and serve American interests.
Iran
However, Obama did introduce the Iran Divestment Bill along with two Democratic Congressmen (Congressmen Barney Frank and Tom Lantos). Given that Barney Frank is one of the most knowledgeable members of Congress and chairs the House Financial Services Committee and knows the financial industry well, would know how to craft such a bill. I suspect that Obama signed on as a co-sponsor for protective coloration, while Frank and fellow veteran Tom Lantos felt it could not hurt to have a rising star as a co-sponsor.
This bill would:
Require the U.S. government to publish a list every six months of those companies that have an investment of more than $20 million in Iran's energy sector. This comprehensive list will provide investors with the knowledge to make informed investment decisions as well as a powerful disincentive for foreign companies to engage with Iran.
Authorize state and local governments to divest the assets of their pension funds and other funds under their control from any company on the list.
Protect fund managers who divest from companies on this list from lawsuits directed at them by investors who are unhappy with the results.
Obama supporters and Obama himself trumpet this bill as Obama's efforts to somehow "sanction" Iran. This bill does not sanction Iran; it merely requires the government to publicize companies that invest in Iran's energy sector. Such companies are already listed various think tanks.
States and local governments are already divesting from these companies, so the second provision is superfluous. Protecting fund managers from lawsuits might be of help since we do live in a litigious society.
But there are grounds to doubt Obama's seriousness on the issue. He has openly advocated outreach towards Iran, a state that makes clear its genocidal intentions towards Israel, funds Hezbollah and terrorism against America, Israel, and Jewish targets around the world. Obama has seemed to excuse attacks against Americans by Iranian-supported terror groups because we have provoked Iran by trying to liberate Iraq (we are in their neighborhood) or as Barack has put it, Iraq is under occupation by America (which makes one wonder how he feels about Israeli settlements).
The bill languishes, not promoted or pushed; but does serve as a nice campaign prop every now and then.
Furthermore, there already are targeted sanctions in place now. They can be employed against Iranians and Iranian groups identified as being terrorists or terror groups. Yet when Congress voted to identify the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terror group-thus making it susceptible to sanction-Barack Obama was not just AWOL (as has been widely noted, Obama has a history of missing votes and avoiding unpleasant decisions) but harshly attacked his political opponents for voting to so designate the Guards as a terror group. This is absurd: the Guard has been implicated in terror attacks against Americans in Iran, Argentinean Jews in bombing attacks in Buenos Aires, and has bolstered Hezbollah in Lebanon. Designating this group as terrorists is crucial in weakening its power. Yet, Obama objected to characterizing them as terrorists. That does not bode well for how seriously a President Obama would deal with Iran or how supportive he would be of our ally.
Obama has called for withdraw from Iraq, which would destabilize the region and lead to a further expansion of Iranian power. He also introduced a Senate Resolution on Iran that strips President Bush of the authority to take military action against it. .
Unilateral nuclear disarmament for Israel
Obama has also called for the abolition of all nuclear weapons in the world and said that America, by not openly leading a campaign to end nuclear weapons is "giving countries like Iran and North Korea an excuse."
This is naïve beyond belief and is identical to arguments made in the Arab world that justify their pursuit of nuclear weapons because Israel has nuclear weapons. We all know how such a program would operate in the real world: Western, open nations such as Israel would be stripped of the capability of nuclear weapons; dictatorships, such as Iran, would continue to operate their secret programs.
Israel's nuclear arsenal has helped offset the strategic peril that comes from being surrounded by much larger nations openly declaring their goal of its destruction. Obama's call would unilaterally work to disarm Israel.
Pressuring Israel
Obama has also blamed that "our neglect of the Middle East Peace Process has spurred despair and fueled terrorism" implicitly blaming Israel for terrorism and a sign that a President Obama would pressure Israel. Obama seems to ignore the roles that schools play in the Middle East in the teaching of hatred; the roles of mosques and Imams in stoking terrorism; the glorification of violence and martyrdom in the media; the role of jihad in the Koran.
He also was the only Democratic Presidential aspirant to sign a Senate Resolution that would ban the use of cluster bombs. These are the types of weapons used by Israel to counter massed attacks by Hezbollah, and are vitally important to her security; Hezbollah also used the same type of weapons. Does anyone think Hezbollah will refrain from using these weapons? How about suicide bombers who rely on similar types of "ordinance' to inflict mass casualties among civilians? Once again, high-minded rhetoric conceals an agenda of unilateral disarmament of the Jewish state.
Advisors
Every Presidential candidate assembles a foreign policy team of advisers. A glimpse into the makeup of Obama's team has leaked to the media.
Martin Peretz of The New Republic -- a supporter of Obama and of Israel -- had this to say about Obama's Foreign Policy team:
"I have my qualms, as you may know, about Barack Obama, and most especially about what his foreign policy might be. If elected (and actually before he were to be elected), the first decision he would have to make would be who would represent him in the transition to power from early November to January 20. And, frankly, I get the shudders since he has indicated that, among others, they would be Zbigniew Bzrezinski (I don't know much about his son, listed as Mark, but I can guess), Anthony Lake, Susan Rice and Robert O. Malley."
Lake and Brzezenski both earned their spurs in the Carter Administration. The Carter era led to the fall of the Shah of Iran (a stalwart ally of both America and Israel), which gave birth to the Iranian revolution. We all know how well that has turned out. Jimmy Carter, of course, has led a very public campaign of vilification against Israel-defaming it as an apartheid state (a view that Obama's Pastor would concur with).
Anthony Lake has been all but retired for the last dozen years-living on a farm in the Berkshires. This makes one wonder what he is bringing to the table, other than his Carter-era pedigree and beliefs. He has been reactivated though-one of his roles seems to be as ambassador to the Arab-American community .
The appointment of Brzezenski elicited much dismay among supporters of Israel since Brzezinski is well known for his aggressive dislike of Israel. . He has been an ardent foe of Israel for over three decades and newspaper files are littered with his screeds against Israel. Brzezinski has publicly defended the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis that the relationship between America and Israel is based not on shared values and common threats but is the product of Jewish pressure. Brzezinski also signed a letter demanding dialogue with Hamas-a group whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel and is filled with threats to Jews around the world.
After Hezbollah launched attacks against Israel in the summer of 2006, murdered Israelis and took hostages, Israel tried to get its citizens back by moving into Lebanon. Warfare resulted. Brzezinski wrote that Israel's actions amounted to the "killing of hostages" (the hostages being Lebanese caught in the battles). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/zbig-brzezinski-israel_b_25821.html
Brzezinski's son, Mark, is also on Obama's foreign policy team. Evidently the apple does not fall far from the tree. Mark recently co-wrote an op-ed advocating that America forge ties with Iran.
Susan Rice was John Kerry's chief foreign policy adviser when he ran for President. One of the major steps Kerry suggested for dealing with the Middle East was to appoint James Baker and Jimmy Carter as negotiators. When furor erupted at the prospect of two of the most ardent foes of Israel being suggested to basically ride "roughshod" over Israel, Kerry backtracked and blamed his staff for the idea. His staff was Susan Rice.
Drilling down further we have Robert Malley. He was part of the American negotiating team that dealt with Yasser Arafat at Camp David. He has presented a revisionist history of those negotiations since then: presenting a view that blames Israel for the failures of the negotiations. His version has been radically at odds with the views of Americans and Israelis (including the views of American Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross-also an adviser to Obama- and President Clinton).
He has spent years representing the Palestinian point of view, co-writing a series of anti-Israel articles with Hussein Agha-a former Arafat adviser. Palestinian advocate. These have appeared in the New York Review of Books a publication that has served as a platform for a slew of anti-Israel advocates from Tony Judt to the aforementioned George Soros to the authors of the Israeli Lobby book Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. Malley has also called settlements "colonies" -- implicitly condemning Israel as a "colonial" state. His writings have been so critical of Israel that the media-monitoring group CAMERA has a "dossier" on him. (CAMERA also has a listing for Brzezinski).
Then there is this disconcerting article in the Financial Times about Democratic Presidential candidates and Israel. One of the key advisers to one of the Presidential candidates admitted to some tactical moves to garner pro-Israel support in America:
"The plain fact is there is no upside for candidates to challenge the prevailing assumptions about Israel," said one of their advisers, who asked not to be named. "The best strategy is to win the White House and then change the debate."
One well-regarded blogger, Rutgers Professor Judith Apter Klinghoffer believes this adviser was Ivo Daalder, who was quoted throughout the article and who is one of the foreign policy advisers to Barack Obama. Professor Klinghoffer is skeptical about Daalder and his feelings towards the American-Israel relationship. .
A snapshot of Daalder's views: He has, like Obama, singled out Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz as being responsible for manipulating the levers of power to serve the interests of other countries (it bears reiterating, Perle had no official position in the Administration; Bush, Powell ,Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice-those were the decision-makers). Daalder has seemingly advocated talks with Hezbollah, Syria, Iran. Daalder stated that Israel's bombing of Qana (an attack targeting Hezbollah missile placements that resulted in civilian death) in the war against Hezbollah imperiled Israel's claim to the moral high ground. These and assorted other positions lend credence to Professor Klinghoffer's view.
Scott Lasensky has also been appointed a foreign policy adviser to Obama. This step should also be viewed with a gimlet eye. In a book to be published this month, he and co-author Daniel Kurtzer write glowingly of the George H.W. Bush and James Baker's approach towards dealing with Israel, but faulted Bush and Baker for inadequately derailing the pro-Israel lobby which was more skeptical of the push against Israel into Yasser Arafat's arms.
He has called for Islamists and Hamas to be brought into the "peace process," before this Mideast moment slips away.
He has called residents of Israeli settlements "obstructionists" He has been given the stamp of approval by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, a notoriously harsh anti-Israel group .
He was also used by CNN's Christiane Amanpour to castigate Israel in her widely criticized CNN's Jewish Warriors "documentary" -- a documentary that has been heavily criticized for its bias and factual errors)
Lasensky has been hosted by the activist group Brit Tzedek v'Shalom and will be hosted by Americans for Peace Now , both of which groups have been highly critical of Israel over the years.
He has recently called for aggressive American involvement in pushing for a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians -- calling for the end of the incremental approach (which is "trust but verify" approach meant to test each side's honesty and ability to bring about peace). Abolishing it would be a foolish and potentially disastrous leap of faith into the unknown.
He has called for engagement with Iran.
The group for which he works, the Unites States Institute of Peace, was the key organizer of the Iraq Study Group that produced a report that has very troubling recommendations concerning Israel (James Baker, whose approach towards Israel Lasensky admires, was one of the two people who headed the Iraq Study Group).
Obama supporters might counter that Obama has a wide range of foreign advisers and seeks input from people with a variety of views. Most likely, Dennis Ross-with deep ties to the American Jewish community-will be headlined in this argument. However, it is unclear what role Ross has on the team. He is clearly angling to join what may be the next Administration in the White House. How likely is it that Ross, who served the Clintons (now Obama's opponents), will hold sway against the triumvirate of key Obama heavyweights: Lake, Brzezinski, and Susan Rice?
Obama and John Bolton
Conversely, Obama actively opposed the nomination of John Bolton as our Ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton's track record in support of Israel is impressive.
As Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Bolton took started a new project, the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), that has played a very important role in preventing hostile nations (including those in the Arab world) from developing weapons of mass destruction. Boats were interdicted on the high seas, for example, when suspicions arose that they carried suspect cargoes. The PSI was also responsible for helping to put an end to Libya's nuclear program, which led to the unraveling of the A.Q. Khan nuclear weapons black market that has imperiled our friends in the region (and ourselves).
While at the United Nations, Bolton was a stalwart defender of American interests and those of our allies. He was also a firm supporter of Israel (next to Patrick Moynihan, probably one of the best) -- a thankless task given the pervasive anti-Israel bias at the UN.
Bolton has continued to support the American-Israel relationship after leaving government service -- for example, writing a series of op-eds, the latest of which support Israel's decision to bomb the likely nuclear plant in Syria.
Regardless of Bolton's evident talents and drive, Obama worked to derail his career. Was it his views that Obama objected to?
Congressional support
Similarly, Obama supporters might rely on the support Obama has drawn from various Democratic Jewish Congressman (Wexler, Rothman, Schiff among them) over the last year. These stamps of approval might be met with some skepticism (Wexler went so far as to talk of Obama's "love for Israel" based on a single tip Obama took to Israel when he began considering a Presidential run).
These Congressmen are well aware that Obama might be the next President-certainly it never hurts to have a friend in the White House. They are also Democrats who would want to bolster a fellow Democrat-particularly if it helps them with their own African-American constituents. Obama is a very compelling speaker -- he has campaigned for fellow Democrats across the nation. Having a chit with Obama might be very useful in during the endless campaigning these Congressmen will be facing in the years ahead
The team seems to reflect an approach that should come as no surprise.
Obama would place a great deal of reliance on international institutions -- the same international organizations that have opposed America and Israel for many years. Obama's approach towards the Islamic world indicates an approach form weakness, as if, to invert Osama bin Laden's dictum, people were attracted to the nicest horse. He would organize a meeting between Muslim leaders from all over the world and Americans so we can move forward with them as partners with "dignity and respect."
Partners? To be sure this may be flowery diplo-speak. But most of these are leaders who are responsible for spreading hatred throughout their societies: a hatred that manifests itself in violence.
We have shown respect and dignity in our actions in Bosnia, Afghanistan, and yes, Iraq, We have liberated millions of people from genocide and dictatorship-we have given much in the blood of our soldiers and the billions in aid showered on the Muslim world (as the oil kleptocrats spend their billions buying up our corporations). Where is the dignity and respect shown towards America from these Muslim leaders? His approach towards terrorism was eloquently expressed by Wall Street Journal writer Dorothy Rabinowitz who wrote that a President Obama's stance against terrorism would "consist largely of antipoverty programs, reassuring the world of our peaceful intentions, and attending Islamic Conferences."
Speeches and public remarks
There are those willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and rely on his speeches to give comfort. Most recently, the New York Sun took excerpts from a speech he gave to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Chicago last march. I was there, just a few yards in front of Barack Obama. His speech was desultory and lacking the spirit and energy that are a trademark of the gifted oratory of Barack Obama. He clearly seemed to be going through the motions. The content of his speech gave many listeners qualms, including me. Others have their suspicions about whether Obama truly believes what he is saying in his speeches before groups supportive of the American-Israel relationship. .
Beyond that, how valuable are a candidate's speeches for determining what his (or hers) true beliefs are? There are media reports that indicate he has "recalibrated his words about Israel and the Middle East" as part of his efforts to court the Jewish vote. So there are grounds for skepticism about relying on canned speeches as a guide towards divining Obama's true views. Obama is a skilled orator; he has shown an adroit ability to hide friendships that might harm him on the campaign trail. Why not also hide his views behind a smokescreen of aphorism and bromides?
I think a more accurate reflection of these feelings and ideas are found in unscripted, off-the cuff remarks. As Michael Kinsley wrote, a "gaffe is a mistaken utterance or action which actually reveals what a politician truly believes". Obama has a record of off the cuff remarks that are disconcerting. There is, of course, his well-known remark in Des Moines that "Nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people" (which sounds like Pastor Wright is being channeled) that created controversy. He later tried to revise history by insisting he had said "Nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership". However, the well-respected Fact.Check.org and the Des Moines Register newspaper (which has an audio record) dispute Obama's "redo".
He also has objected to Israel's security fence that has all but ended the suicide bombing campaigns that killed so many innocent people. In an interview in 2004 he stated:
"...the creation of a wall dividing the two nations is yet another example of the neglect of this Administration in brokering peace."
There are not two nations (at least yet) and the security fence is not a wall, it is a fence (only a small percent, less than 5% can be considered a "wall" and that is only because of space constraints and the desire to prevent sniper fire from the Palestinians).
His use of the term Cycle of violence" has caused ripples of concern for its intimations of moral equality between the Palestinians and Israelis; as has his elevation of "cynicism" as a core problem in the Middle East, rather than say, terrorism.
At an anti-war rally he stated that he was
"Opposed to the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in the administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throat" .
This is disturbing. Obama ignored the role of Colin Powell, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice and other movers and shakers in the Administration. But Perle (who never even served in the Administration) and Wolfowitz (who was a Deputy Secretary) have been lumped together by many anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists as Jews who led us into the Iraq War to serve the interests of Israel. Who has Obama been listening to? His moral compass, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Junior?
There are other remarks of Obama's that have struck others as being less than supportive of Israel. . Among them are words that put the onus on Israel to change the status quo in its relations with the Palestinians. He was the only candidate at the National Jewish Democratic Council conference that burdens Israel with that role.
There are grounds to be concerned that he would discard the "Road Map" that provides guidelines for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. He has stated that the "Israel government must make difficult concessions for the peace process to restart." The Road Map places obligations on both sides to take steps simultaneously on the road to peace. Israel is explicitly not obligated to take the first steps. This confirms the views he expressed to the NJDC that he would place the onus on Israel in future peace negotiations. .
Congressional support
Obama supporters might rely on the support Obama has drawn from various Democratic Jewish Congressman (Wexler, Rothman, Schiff among them) over the last year. These stamps of approval might be met with some skepticism (Wexler went so far as to talk of Obama's "love for Israel" based on a single tip Obama took to Israel when he began considering a Presidential run).
These Congressmen are well aware that Obama might be the next President-certainly it never hurts to have a friend in the White House. They are also Democrats who would want to bolster a fellow Democrat-particularly if it helps them with their own African-American constituents. Obama is a very compelling speaker-he has campaigned for fellow Democrats across the nation. Having a chit with Obama might be very useful in during the endless campaigning these Congressmen will be facing in the years ahead.
However, for those whose careers do not depend on being in the good graces of Barack Obama, he is a figure who inspires not the trope of hope, but a measure of anxiety.
Shmuel Rosner, the Washington correspondent of the liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz, noted that that the prediction that Obama would be least favorable of any of the candidates toward Israel may partly be due to the fact that his "supporters come mainly from the left-wing of the Democratic Party and from the African-American community -- from constituencies which are traditionally not that supportive of Israel".
But Obama has on his own volition assembled his networks of friends, mentors, financial supporters and foreign policy advisers. In his judgment -- a judgment that he regularly trumpets as being superior to others - these people are worthy of advising him. There are among those friends and advisers key people who seem to display a great deal of antipathy towards the American-Israel relationship.
These are the constituencies and associates that should warrant concern among all those who care about a strong American-Israel relationship. His electoral success will send a message to all future politicians that they can willingly ignore the views of those Americans who value a close relationship with the sole democracy and our only true ally in the Middle East. We may see the ramifications of Obama's ascent in the years yet to come.
Ed Lasky is news editor of American Thinker
Recent Articles
PORKBUSTERS UPDATE: Bipartisan demands that Bush do nothing about earmarks:
The leaders of the Senate Appropriations Committee are calling on President Bush to back away from threats to kill funding for lawmakers’ pet projects.
The pre-emptive warnings from the top Democrat and Republican on the panel are the clearest signs yet that President Bush could face a bipartisan backlash if he uses his executive authority to wipe out the more than $7 billion in earmarks.
Yeah, nobody wants that except the taxpayers . . . . The Republicans, in particular, who are behind this demand are the reason why the GOP lost in 2006, and if Bush listens they'll be the reason why the GOP loses in 2008.
They won't care, though, as long as they are permitted to suck unmolested at the government teat.
I guess every rule has it's exception.
Unless it means chosen for self loathing assclown
Krugman oughta know- he's been wrong about predicting that our economy would be in recession for the last 5 years
He's a political hack whose hatred of Bush has turned him into a blithering idiot
And you got the short one.......
You just wasted valuable time in your life.
If I don't accept the premise or relevance of your question ( not to mention your laundry list of incorrect suppositions ), I'll ignore them as I please
how could we possibly deny all the good news from Bush's wars?
Practice, practice, practice
ML
Excuse my ignorance, but how did the Israelis come to be the chosen people?
Thanks
The Identity Trap
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: January 15, 2008
When Hillary Clinton is good on the Sunday talk shows, she is really, really good. But when she is bad, she’s atrocious. When she talks about policy, she will dazzle you. When her own ambitions are on the line, it’s time to reach for the sick bag.
Skip to next paragraph
David Brooks
Go to Columnist Page »
On “Meet the Press” Sunday, it was the latter. Clinton refused to admit any real errors. She implied that Barack Obama is unfit to be president, without ever honestly taking responsibility for what she actually believes.
She broadcast her own humility: “You know, I’m very other-directed. I don’t like talking about myself.” She also described the central role she plays in the lives of all living creatures in the universe: “The Iraqi government, they watch us, they listen to us. I know very well that they follow everything that I say.”
But Clinton’s real problem is that she is caught in a trap, which you might call The Identity Trap.
Both Clinton and Obama have eagerly donned the mantle of identity politics. A Clinton victory wouldn’t just be a victory for one woman, it would be a victory for little girls everywhere. An Obama victory would be about completing the dream, keeping the dream alive, and so on.
Fair enough. The problem is that both the feminist movement Clinton rides and the civil rights rhetoric Obama uses were constructed at a time when the enemy was the reactionary white male establishment. Today, they are not facing the white male establishment. They are facing each other.
All the rhetorical devices that have been a staple of identity politics are now being exploited by the Clinton and Obama campaigns against each other. They are competing to play the victim. They are both accusing each other of insensitivity. They are both deliberately misinterpreting each other’s comments in order to somehow imply that the other is morally retrograde.
All the habits of verbal thuggery that have long been used against critics of affirmative action, like Ward Churchill and Thomas Sowell, and critics of the radical feminism, like Christina Hoff Summers, are now being turned inward by the Democratic front-runners.
Clinton is suffering most. She is now accused, absurdly, of being insensitive to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Bill Clinton’s talk of a “fairy tale,” which was used in the context of the Iraq debate, is now being distorted into a condemnation of the civil rights movement. Hillary Clinton finds that in attacking Obama, she is accused of being hostile to the entire African-American experience.
Clinton’s fallback position is that neither she nor Obama should be judged as representatives of their out-groups. They should be judged as individuals.
But the entire theory of identity politics was that we are not mere individuals. We carry the perspectives of our group consciousness. Our social roles and loyalties are defined by race and gender. It’s a black or female thing. You wouldn’t understand.
Even in this moment of stress, Clinton wants to have it both ways. She wants to be emblematic of her gender and liberated from race and gender politics. As she told Tim Russert on Sunday: “You have a woman running to break the highest and hardest glass ceiling. I don’t think either of us wants to inject race or gender in this campaign. We’re running as individuals.”
Huh?
What we have here is worthy of a Tom Wolfe novel: the bonfire of the multicultural vanities. The Clintons are hitting Obama with everything they’ve got. The Obama subordinates are twisting every critique into a racial outrage in an effort to make all criticism morally off-limits. Obama’s campaign drew up a memo delineating all of the Clintons’ supposed racial outrages. Bill Clinton is frantically touring black radio stations to repair any wounds.
Meanwhile, Clinton friend Robert Johnson, a one-man gaffe machine, reminds us of Obama’s drug use and accuses him of being like Sidney Poitier in “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.” Another Clinton supporter, Gloria Steinem, notes that black men were given the vote a half-century before women.
This is the logical extreme of the identity politics that as been floating around this country for decades. Every revolution devours its offspring, and it seems the multicultural one does, too.
The final two points I’d make are: First, this whole show seems stale and deranged to the younger set, as Obama and Clinton seemed to recognize when they damped down the feud yesterday afternoon. The interesting split is not between the feminist and civil rights Old Bulls, it’s between the establishments of both movements, who emphasize top-down change, and the younger dissenters, who don’t. Second, this dispute is going to be settled by the rising, and so far ignored, minority group. For all the current fighting, it’ll be Latinos who end up determining who gets the nomination.
At last, a bridge to the 21st century.
In Defending War Vote, Clintons Contradict Record
By ERIC LIPTON
Published: January 14, 2008
WASHINGTON — Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton have repeatedly invoked the name of Senator Chuck Hagel, a longtime critic of the Iraq war, as they defend Mrs. Clinton’s 2002 vote to authorize the war.
In interviews and at a recent campaign event, they have said that Mr. Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, helped draft the resolution, which they said was proof that the measure was more about urging Saddam Hussein to comply with weapons inspections, instead of authorizing combat.
Mrs. Clinton repeated the claim Sunday during an interview on “Meet the Press,” saying “Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution, said it was not a vote for war.”
“It was a vote to use the threat of force against Saddam Hussein, who never did anything without being made to do so,” Mrs. Clinton said.
But the talking point appears to misconstrue the facts.
In October 2002, Mr. Hagel had in fact been working with Senators Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, and Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, on drafting a resolution that would have authorized the war.
But while those negotiations were under way, to the disappointment of some Congressional Democrats, the Bush administration circumvented their effort and reached a separate agreement with Representative Richard A. Gephardt, Democrat of Missouri, then the House minority leader.
That agreement resulted in a bill, sponsored in the Senate by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, now an independent, which was slightly less restrictive than the proposal that Mr. Hagel had been helping to develop.
In the original proposal Mr. Hagel had backed, force was authorized only to secure the destruction of Iraq’s unconventional weapons, not to enforce “all relevant” United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, which was the language in the version that ultimately passed.
It was the White House proposal, not Mr. Hagel’s, that Mrs. Clinton supported, explaining in an Oct. 10, 2002, speech on the Senate floor that it was time to tell Saddam Hussein that “this is your last chance — disarm or be disarmed.”
The repeated references to Mr. Hagel by the Clintons make it clear that they are trying to distance her from the Bush administration’s handling of Iraq, by associating her with a persistent critic of the war.
Bill Clinton has raised the claim at least twice, including in an April 2007 interview on “Larry King Live” and, most recently, at a campaign event in New Hampshire just before the Democratic primary there.
“Chuck Hagel was one of the co-authors of that resolution, the only Republican Senator that always opposed the war, every day, from the get-go,” Mr. Clinton said on Jan. 7. “He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn’t cooperate with the inspectors.”
A spokesman for Mr. Hagel declined on Sunday to comment about the matter.
In an interview published in GQ magazine in January 2007, Mr. Hagel said that he helped shape the course of the debate — even if it was not his resolution that ultimately passed. He said he helped convince the White House to narrow its request for authorization to go to war just to Iraq. Initially, the administration wanted Congress to approve a broad measure that would not have necessarily specified Iraq as the only target, potentially allowing action elsewhere in the Middle East.
Phil Singer, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, said Sunday that the statements by the senator and Mr. Clinton accurately reflected the role that Mr. Hagel played in the overall negotiations, even if it was not his bill that Congress voted on.
“Senator Hagel not only played a key role in drafting the 2002 authorization,” Mr. Singer said, “but has spoken about those efforts at length.”
More Articles in National »
Hillary Clinton Goes for Hearts [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
This statement just in, from her campaign:
“Over this past week, there has been a lot of discussion and back and forth - much of which I know does not reflect what is in our hearts.
“And at this moment, I believe we must seek common ground.
“Our party and our nation is bigger than this. Our party has been on the front line of every civil rights movement, women's rights movement, workers' rights movement, and other movements for justice in America.
“We differ on a lot of things. And it is critical to have the right kind of discussion on where we stand. But when it comes to civil rights and our commitment to diversity, when it comes to our heroes - President John F. Kennedy and Dr. King – Senator Obama and I are on the same side.
“And in that spirit, let's come together, because I want more than anything else to ensure that our family stays together on the front lines of the struggle to expand rights for all Americans.”
01/14 07:03 PM
-------------------------------------------------------------------
re: Hillary Goes for Hearts [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
A friend sums it up: "so, in other words, she moronically starts a fight on race with the black guy, it predictably blows up in her face, and now she wants to make nice as if he were the one who started it?"
01/14 07:46 PM
Not relevant to the current discussion
The point is that the libs are in denial that there is political progress being made
The signing of the act between the 3 factions in Iraq is step forward politically
Would you deny that?
LOL, what a tool
Didn't you even bother to read the article showing that they just made significant progress with the agreement between the Sunni, Shia and Kurds on de-baathification???
Back to the shop for reprogramming
Sooo, the rationalizing has gone from
"The surge won't work- the war is lost"
To
" The surge is working, but the political aims of the surge aren't happening"
To
"Sure they're making political progress, but it doesn't really matter"
IF you understood the recent history, you would admit that the signing of an agreement of understanding between the 3 groups in Iraq, given the horrible thuggish nature of Saddam and his Sunni backed rule is a major step forward.
But, I'm sure you'll continue to find comfort in your denial.
Please list the political understandings between the Sunni, Shia and Kurd while saddam was in power
Please list how oil revenue was shared among the 3 groups while saddam was in power
Thanks
Hey clown, what I posted was fact about Murtha. POst links that refute it or STFU
The Pork King Keeps His Crown
Published: January 14, 2008
The new earmark disclosure rules put into effect by Congress confirm the pre-eminence of Representative John Murtha at procuring eye-popping chunks of pork for contractors he helped put in business in Johnstown, Pa. The Pennsylvania Democrat, a power player on defense appropriations, exudes pride, not embarrassment, for delivering hundreds of millions of dollars in largesse to district beneficiaries. They, in turn, requite with hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations.
Skip to next paragraph
The Board Blog
The BoardAdditional commentary, background information and other items by Times editorial writers.
Go to The Board »
Mr. Murtha led all House members this year, securing $162 million in district favors, according to the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. In all, eager members in both houses enacted 11,144 earmarks, worth $15 billion. Taxpayers may be inured to $113,000 for rodent control in Alaska or a million for Idaho’s weed management. Mr. Murtha’s universe is a far more complicated and costly creation of interlocking contractors who continue to feed at the public trough despite reviews questioning their performance.
In 1991, Mr. Murtha used a $5 million earmark to create the National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence in Johnstown to develop anti-pollution technology for the military. Since then, it has garnered more than $670 million in contracts and earmarks. Meanwhile it is managed by another contractor Mr. Murtha helped create, Concurrent Technologies, a research operation that somehow was allowed to be set up as a tax-exempt charity, according to The Washington Post. Thanks to Mr. Murtha, Concurrent has boomed; the annual salary for its top three executives averages $462,000.
There’s been no report of Mr. Murtha’s profiting personally. “This is about jobs,” the congressman insists. But the Murtha operation — which has become a model for other entrepreneurial lawmakers — is a gross example of quid pro quo Washington. Every one of the 26 beneficiaries of Mr. Murtha’s earmarks in last year’s defense budget made contributions to his campaign kitty, a total of $413,250, according to the newspaper Roll Call. The Pentagon, seeking its own goodies before Mr. Murtha’s committee, is noticeably hesitant to challenge his projects. And we’re not hearing a lot of objections from his colleagues — not after members have ladled out a fresh $15 billion for their own special interests, just in time for the coming elections.
Next Article in Opinion (3 of 19) »
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/opinion/14mon3.html?ex=1358053200&en=7120c5a4edc8bcdc&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
I read a great article the other day about some guy who is modifying cars- using GM parts that are all easily available so they are getting 50-60 MPG
And these are not tiny boxes- they are Lincoln Continentals and Hummers
Neil Young and Ahnuld have sent him cars to modify
It's guys like him, not Algore who should be winning recognition for their contribution to our ecology
Rather than neurosing about taking showers, we need to find solutions that aren't regressive. The emerging countries certainly don't want to hear about limiting consumption now that they are ready to afford to consume
LOL, I ask YOU how YOU felt and you just rebot what Murtha said ( that NOBODY believes )
Why the Iran/US Navy encounter is important
Posted by: McQ
In my post about the incident of the 5 Iranian speedboats and the 3 ship US Navy group, I mentioned I thought the Iranian actions were a probe of sorts. Let me flesh that out a bit and point to a wargame the Navy held in '02 as an explanation.
The Straits of Hormuz is a highly restrictive waterway. Because it is so narrow, there is very little room to maneuver, especially when talking about large warships. Consequently it makes a perfect "ambush" site, for want of a better word. At its narrowest point, it is 35 miles across. Any access to the Persian Gulf passes through the Straits of Hormuz. The Iranians, of course, are acutely aware of that, and, it seems, are basing their naval operations on controlling the straits and attacking shipping, to include naval shipping in that constricted space.
So given this lack of maneuver room for large warships, the threat is real from both land based missiles and from naval craft.
The question then becomes, what sort of naval craft present a threat. In the case of a restricted waterway, small, fast and highly maneuverable craft probably would pose the greatest threat. That's because a carrier battle group, for instance, wouldn't be able to deploy its rings of protective craft at the distance it usually does at sea, thereby being much more vulnerable to attack because of the extreme compression of its protective cordon.
And the most effective way to penetrate that compressed cordon is with swarming explosively laden fast craft - speed boats.
And that is what Naval authorities found out in a war game they conducted in 2002.
In that war game, the Blue Team navy, representing the United States, lost 16 major warships - an aircraft carrier, cruisers and amphibious vessels - when they were sunk to the bottom of the Persian Gulf in an attack that included swarming tactics by enemy speedboats.
"The sheer numbers involved overloaded their ability, both mentally and electronically, to handle the attack," said Lt. Gen. Paul K. Van Riper, a retired Marine Corps officer who served in the war game as commander of a Red Team force representing an unnamed Persian Gulf military. "The whole thing was over in 5, maybe 10 minutes."
Swarming isn't a new technique and any gamer out there knows its effectiveness when using overwhelming numbers of low strength units to attack various high strength units. In most case the outcome is inevitable. The way to avoid it, of course, is to be in a position to have a multiple of your high strength units positioned in such a way that they can detect the low strength units at a distance, and with superior standoff capability, engage them before they can engage you, destroying the bulk of them before they ever get close enough to inflict damage on your units.
The Straits of Hormuz negates that ability. Multiple high-speed targets at that close a range would overwhelm shipboard defenses. So a mixed attack of shore-to-ship missiles and swarms of suicide speed boats in a restricted waterway as a carrier battle group attempts to pass has the potential for huge losses and is a very, very real threat.
That is the significance of what the Iranians did that day.
How do you feel about him being the King of Pork??
Death Blow to Defeatists
Yesterday we were losing in Iraq, today we are winning.
By Pete Hegseth
“Iraq’s parliament has adopted legislation on the reinstatement of former Baath party supporters to government jobs.” (AP, 1/12/08)
For anyone who truly understands the stakes in Iraq, the achievement of national “political benchmarks” has never been an effective metric of success. Sure, Iraqis passing laws at the national level is important, but not more important than neighborhood-level security and grassroots political progress.
I learned this the hard way in Samarra, Iraq. Absent strong local security forces and fair, representative government at the neighborhood level, local populations never felt “more secure,” no matter how much useless (or useful) legislation was passed at the national level. Iraqis need to see a better life in their neighborhood, not hear more promises from Baghdad.
↓ Keep reading this article ↓
And for the past six months — because of General Petraeus’s new counter-insurgency strategy and the courage of 165,000 Americans — Iraqis have seen hope (one might even say “audacious hope”), and they have responded. Bolstered by American commitment, and weary of al-Qaeda brutality, the Iraqi people — Sunni and Shia together in many areas — have started cooperating at the local level.
As a result, violence continues to plummet, with attacks throughout Iraq down 60 percent since June and civilian deaths down 75 percent from a year ago. Iraqis are returning home by the tens of thousands. The incoming flow of foreign fighters have been cut in half. And despite a “surge” of troops, American combat deaths are near all-time monthly lows in Iraq. This is all wonderful news.
All the while, the Defeat-o-cratic leadership in Congress (Reid, Pelosi, & co.) and the Defeat-o-cratic presidential candidates have done everything they can to deny — obvious — progress. I cite two very recent examples from the “clinging to defeat” caucus: First, four days ago Majority Leader Reid said in a statement, “As President Bush continues to cling stubbornly to his flawed strategy, al-Qaeda only grows stronger.” Tell that to al-Qaeda in Iraq, Mr. Majority Leader…those you can still find alive. And while a few defeated fighters may flee elsewhere, they have lost in Iraq. And losing is not an effective recruiting tool for jihadists.
Second, in a recent presidential debate, Senator Obama had the “audacity” to suggest that security improvements in Anbar Province were due to — you’re not going to believe this — the Democratic election gains in 2006! I’ve heard some twisted logic in my days, but that one takes the cake.
Apparently the Sunnis in Anbar were incentivized to rise up by the prospect of abandonment, and reacted accordingly. This sloppy — and overtly political — argument doesn’t pass the Counterinsurgency 101 test. Only when populations are empowered — through more security — can they take on the “occupiers” (read: al-Qaeda). When dealing with al-Qaeda, abandonment means slaughter and subjugation.
So, with their “defeat in Iraq” talking points in shambles (what happened to the “religious civil war with no end in sight” talking point?), this weekend’s news was a deathblow to defeatists. The Iraq parliament passed national de-Baathification legislation, and the New York Times printed it on the front page, which means it must be important, right?
For months the only argument the antiwar crowd could cling to was: “The surge has not brought about the national-level political progress it was intended to induce.” Ergo: We lose, bring ‘em home. While this argument requires a “willing suspension of disbelief” in light of recent improvements in Iraq, it was “technically” true.
No more.
The Iraqi parliament, flaws and all, came together — Sunni, Shia, and Kurd — to craft a law that relaxes restrictions on the right of former-members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath party to fill government posts. The law will reinstate thousands of Baathists in government jobs from which they had been dismissed shortly after the war.
In short, less than five years after the fall of a genocidal Sunni dictator — who killed thousands of Shiites and Kurds — a democratically elected Shia government granted de-facto “amnesty” to former Baathist co-conspirators. Kind of makes our domestic illegal-immigration “amnesty” debate look silly, doesn’t it?
We should expect more progress in Iraq, although results will be mixed and the streets will not be quiet soon. But this groundbreaking settlement is a testament to the potential for political reconciliation, provided the security environment is stable enough to allow politicians to peek out from behind their sectarian divisions.
The Iraqi government still has a great deal left to achieve, but today they’ve shown us what real political reconciliation looks like. Democratic leaders in Congress — and on the campaign trail — should take a lesson from the Maliki government. Swallow your pride, admit you were wrong about the surge, and get behind our courageous military.
Some courageous Democrats will do just that, others will continue to trumpet MoveOn.org talking points. The members who embrace MoveOn should remember that the American people may not like the war in Iraq, but they hate losing. Now that we’re winning, they won’t stand for talk of defeat.
In the meantime, the real credit must go to the courageous leaders who had the conviction to commit to Iraq when the outlook was bleak. Thank you, President Bush. Thank you, General Petraeus. Thank you, Ambassador Crocker. Thank you, Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman. Thank you to the 165,000 troops in Iraq. And thank you to the 3,921 fallen heroes of the Iraq war…your sacrifice was not in vain.
Yesterday we were losing in Iraq, today we are winning. Let us continue…together.
— Lt. Pete Hegseth, who served in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division from 2005 to 2006, is executive director of Vets for Freedom.
* * *
PORKBUSTERS UPDATE: New York Times: The Pork King keeps his crown:
The new earmark disclosure rules put into effect by Congress confirm the pre-eminence of Representative John Murtha at procuring eye-popping chunks of pork for contractors he helped put in business in Johnstown, Pa. The Pennsylvania Democrat, a power player on defense appropriations, exudes pride, not embarrassment, for delivering hundreds of millions of dollars in largesse to district beneficiaries. They, in turn, requite with hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations. . . . “This is about jobs,” the congressman insists. But the Murtha operation — which has become a model for other entrepreneurial lawmakers — is a gross example of quid pro quo Washington. Every one of the 26 beneficiaries of Mr. Murtha’s earmarks in last year’s defense budget made contributions to his campaign kitty, a total of $413,250, according to the newspaper Roll Call. The Pentagon, seeking its own goodies before Mr. Murtha’s committee, is noticeably hesitant to challenge his projects. And we’re not hearing a lot of objections from his colleagues — not after members have ladled out a fresh $15 billion for their own special interests, just in time for the coming elections.
It's as if the whole system is corrupt.
Hillary and Race [Victor Davis Hanson]
It may or may not be Hillary's intent to deprecate in stereotype fashion the role of black rhetoric in galvanizing change by pointing out that LBJ, not Martin Luther King Jr., is to be given the greater credit for enacting civil-rights legislation. But it is a losing argument for her against Obama, and she makes things much worse every time she or Bill dredge it up for at least several reasons.
First LBJ, the legal reformer, would have never have become the born-again civil-rights advocate (cf. his earlier career as a supporter of the Texas status quo), without the pressure from the movement inspired by King. King's job was to move public opinion, LBJ's to reflect —and capitalize on — those new realities.
Two, it is always a bad idea to praise LBJ at the expense of MLK. Rightly or wrongly, most Americans look back in horror at the former, and fondly at the latter. She's riding the wrong horse, and doesn't seem to grasp that fact.
Third, Hillary's paradigm confirms the complaints of racial stereotyping — white pros like herself and LBJ do the "real" work of intricate legislative craftsmanship, while black "inspirational" leaders, such as Obama and MLK, with no aptitude for detail or complex law, give fiery speeches and protest about unfairness.
Fourth, it flies in the face of facts that Obama, the Harvard law graduate and senator from Illinois, can only inspire and not understand or promote law.
She and Bill obviously think that they've so cemented the issue of the Clintons as our first Black Presidents that their racial fides is above suspicion. It isn't; and the Obama the soul speaker vs. Hillary the brainy insider is a lose / lose / lose /lose proposition. I'm surprised that her handlers haven't muzzled altogether the Clintoni on this issue.
Read up on Bob Zubrin.
He's advocating that car makers simply put flex motors in all their cars- and additional cost of $100/ car
They could then run on , ethanol, methanol and regular gas.
His theory is that the alternative fuels sources will appear due to the demand.
I don't know why one of the candidates don't champion the plan. IT's a winner in economic and security terms
New GM Partnership Aims for Cheaper Ethanol by 2011: Live at the 2008 Detroit Auto Show
DETROIT — General Motors announced a partnership today with bio-fuel developer Coskata that it hopes will result in the production of cost-effective E85 by 2011.
GM chief Rick Wagoner announced the partnership, saying that GM had taken an undisclosed equity stake in Coskata: “We are very excited about what this breakthrough will mean to the viability of biofuels and, more importantly, to our ability to reduce dependence on petroleum.”
Coskata’s process addresses many of the issues associated with grain-based ethanol production, including environmental, transportation and land use concerns (i.e., it takes a lot of energy input to get only a little output).
Using patented microorganisms and transformative bioreactor designs, Coskata ethanol is produced via a unique three-step conversion process that turns virtually any carbon-based feedstock—including biomass, municipal solid waste, and a variety of agricultural waste—into ethanol, making production a possibility in almost any geography. The technology is ethanol-specific and enzyme independent, requiring no additional chemicals or pre-treatments.
Simply put, the Coskata process can produce ethanol almost anywhere in the world, using practically any renewable source, including feedstock, garbage, old tires and plant waste. And it can do so for less than a dollar per gallon.
The process also uses less than a gallon of water to make a gallon of ethanol compared with three gallons or more for other processes.
According to Argonne National Laboratory, which analyzed Coskata’s process, for every unit of energy used, it generates up to 7.7 times that amount of energy, and it reduces CO2 emissions by up to 84 percent compared with a well-to-wheel analysis of gasoline.
Though the fruits of Coskata’s labor will not be realized until at least 2011, the concept is promising and makes the widespread use ethanol more acceptable. —Chuck Tannert
RELATED STORIES
• ANALYSIS: The Trouble With Ethanol
Add Comment
The Democrats’ Fairy Tale
Article Tools Sponsored By
By WILLIAM KRISTOL
Published: January 14, 2008
“Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.” Thus spoke Bill Clinton last Monday night, exasperated by Barack Obama’s claim that he — unlike Hillary Clinton — had been consistently right (or wrong, depending on your point of view) on the Iraq war.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Times Topics: William Kristol
Now in fact, Obama has been pretty consistent in his opposition to the war. But Bill Clinton is right in this respect: Obama’s view of the current situation in Iraq is out of touch with reality. In this, however, Obama is at one with Hillary Clinton and the entire leadership of the Democratic Party.
When President Bush announced the surge of troops in support of a new counterinsurgency strategy a year ago, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Democratic Congressional leaders predicted failure. Obama, for example, told Larry King that he didn’t believe additional U.S. troops would “make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that’s taking place there.” Then in April, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, asserted that “this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything.” In September, Clinton told Gen. David Petraeus that his claims of progress in Iraq required a “willing suspension of disbelief.”
The Democrats were wrong in their assessments of the surge. Attacks per week on American troops are now down about 60 percent from June. Civilian deaths are down approximately 75 percent from a year ago. December 2007 saw the second-lowest number of U.S. troops killed in action since March 2003. And according to Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of day-to-day military operations in Iraq, last month’s overall number of deaths, which includes Iraqi security forces and civilian casualties as well as U.S. and coalition losses, may well have been the lowest since the war began.
Do Obama and Clinton and Reid now acknowledge that they were wrong? Are they willing to say the surge worked?
No. It’s apparently impermissible for leading Democrats to acknowledge — let alone celebrate — progress in Iraq. When asked recently whether she stood behind her “willing suspension of disbelief” insult to General Petraeus, Clinton said, “That’s right.”
When Obama was asked in the most recent Democratic presidential debate, “Would you have seen this kind of greater security in Iraq if we had followed your recommendations to pull the troops out last year?” he didn’t directly address the question. But he volunteered that “much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar Province, Sunni tribes, who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what? — the Americans may be leaving soon. And we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shias. We should start negotiating now.”
But Sunni tribes in Anbar announced in September 2006 that they would join to fight Al Qaeda. That was two months before the Democrats won control of Congress. The Sunni tribes turned not primarily because of fear of the Shiites, but because of their horror at Al Qaeda’s atrocities in Anbar. And the improvements in Anbar could never have been sustained without aggressive American military efforts — efforts that were more effective in 2007 than they had been in 2006, due in part to the addition of the surge forces.
Last year’s success, in Anbar and elsewhere, was made possible by confidence among Iraqis that U.S. troops would stay and help protect them, that the U.S. would not abandon them to their enemies. Because the U.S. sent more troops instead of withdrawing — because, in other words, President Bush won his battles in 2007 with the Democratic Congress — we have been able to turn around the situation in Iraq.
And now Iraq’s Parliament has passed a de-Baathification law — one of the so-called benchmarks Congress established for political reconciliation. For much of 2007, Democrats were able to deprecate the military progress and political reconciliation taking place on the ground by harping on the failure of the Iraqi government to pass the benchmark legislation. They are being deprived of even that talking point.
Yesterday, on “Meet the Press,” Hillary Clinton claimed that the Iraqis are changing their ways in part because of the Democratic candidates’ “commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009.” So the Democratic Party, having proclaimed that the war is lost and having sought to withdraw U.S. troops, deserves credit for any progress that may have been achieved in Iraq.
That is truly a fairy tale. And it is driven by a refusal to admit real success because that success has been achieved under the leadership of ... George W. Bush. The horror!
•
So Who Got That "Free Pass" from the Media?
Both Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, have recently voiced their discontent that the media has given a "free pass" to Barrack Obama, while focusing intense scrutiny and criticism on Senator Clinton's own record. But how much credence should we assign this claim? If the media were judging Hillary Clinton on her resume, where should their attention have been focused? As Ms. Clinton's only publicly elected office, surely they should have been looking at her list of achievements as the junior Senator of New York, comparing the promises she made in ascending to that office with the results which have since been delivered.
However, at the national level, I never seem to see the pundits and debate hosts asking her about that record. Today I would like to take a look at some of the chief talking points from Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate race, along with her early years in office, and how she has performed since then. There are four significant areas which I believe deserve more attention as we consider our options for the Democratic Presidential nomination and the treatment that Hillary Clinton has received (or failed to attract) during this process.
1. The Brownfields Initiative
2. Industrial redevelopment
3. Job Creation
4. Tax levels in New York
The Brownfields Initiative
One of the highlights of the 2000 Clinton campaign was her focus on how the sagging Upstate New York economy could be bolstered by cleaning up and developing old, polluted industrial sites, long since abandoned by their original owners. (Known commonly as "brownfields") Two years after her initial election, Senator Clinton was still talking about this linchpin of her Upstate development goals.
"We don't have any way to make new land. It is what God gave us and it is our job as stewards of the land to make the best use of it," Clinton told about 200 public officials, developers and real estate agents...
However, much further into her tenure here, even the most vocal proponents of this plan were admitting that it had largely turned into a huge, expensive boondoggle hanging on the backs of the taxpayers. From the Albany Times-Union in July 2007 , representatives from New Yorkers for Fiscal Fairness, the Fiscal Policy Institute, Sierra Club, NYPIRG, and Environmental Advocates noted:
[T]he history of these efforts has been rife with failures: They’ve frequently failed to provide the promised jobs, or have encouraged sprawl in undeveloped areas while pockets of many cities, especially upstate, remain semi-deserted.
Examples abound, but right here in the greater Binghamton area, we have no less than seven designated brownfields which had been targeted for clean-up and development. While tens of millions of dollars have poured into studies, evaluation and analysis, to date not one of them has generated a dollar of tax income from new owners, though efforts continue to this day to get these projects in motion.
Industrial Redevelopment
Examples abound of areas in New York State where jobs were lost and not recovered, but perhaps one of the most visible is the Griffiss Air Force Base, most of which was lost to a series of military base closures and consolidations in the 80s and 90s. Senator Clinton made quite the issue of this situation and her plans to improve the Upstate economy by developing these lands for industrial use and job growth. One of the key "victories" in this effort was the plan to bring Scienx, a high tech optical imaging firm, into the area, creating more than 500 jobs. (For an area the size of Rome, New York, this would represent a huge boon.) There was even a ribbon cutting ceremony to celebrate the glorious day.
Senator Clinton and Governor Pataki stood side by side at ceremonies in Rome, N.Y., welcoming ScienX, a company that will bring an estimated 500 new jobs to the area.
''I will go anywhere, I will do anything, to help bring jobs to upstate New York,'' said Mrs. Clinton, who introduced the company to Rome. ''For me, this is not about politics but is about jobs and technology, and that's why I'm here, because I've been working on this for quite some time.''
Good news indeed for the cash strapped denizens of the Upstate region. More than 10 million dollars of taxpayer money was flushed into the construction of the building and various tax incentives were offered to ScienX as inducement to get started. The only problem was, the deal was only an option and it never materialized.
On Halloween day in 2002, then Gov. George E, Pataki and U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and a host of other dignitaries descended on Griffiss to make a pre-election announcement that the shell building would become the world headquarters of start-up Scienx for the development and production of optical imaging materials that could be used in anticounterfeiting efforts. The creation of more than 500 jobs as the company grew was pledged.
In fact, Scienx never exercised its option to take over the building and the proposal evaporated.
Griffis is in the back yard of my home stomping grounds, which we just visited over the Christmas holiday. The shell building, more than five years later, still stands empty, generating no tax revenue and providing no jobs.
This story, reminiscent of many others around the state, is similar to the brownfields debacle. Griffiss Air Base was polluted to a dangerous degree, and despite more than 135 million dollars of taxpayer money for the cleanup efforts, remains a federal Superfund site to this day.
Job Creation
It has been well documented that Clinton promised during the 2000 campaign that her new initiatives would generate an estimated 200,000 new jobs for New York, particularly in the Upstate region. How did she do on that one? As of 2003 New York had lost an additional 35,000 jobs and by 2007 the net job loss had swelled to 120,000.
While the national media has failed to address this during this campaign cycle, the local Syracuse Post Standard newspaper did manage to ask Clinton about this and she responded saying that there was blame to be laid. However, she placed the blame on the Republican party. One has to wonder - if the state Republican structure was able to stop such progress, could Ms. Clinton really have been unaware at the time of her campaign that we had a Republican governor and a state assembly which has been in GOP control for most of my adult life?
The New York Tax Burden
Another chief talking point of the 2000 Clinton campaign was the fact that New Yorkers were taxed more heavily than nearly any other state in the nation. At the time, the Empire State was rated as the 3rd worst state in the nation for taxation. Under her leadership and the improved economy to come, we were told that this deplorable condition would change.
On this score, at least, Senator Clinton did deliver change. As of 2007, MSN Money's ratings have moved New York State up to 2nd place, with an average Federal, State and Local tax burden of 35.1%.
For the Record
The following is strictly a personal editorial - my conclusions having been a resident of New York throughout Senator Clinton's tenure here and observer of these events, promises and results. Hillary Clinton has not been the personal author of any true "disasters" for the State of New York, but neither has she delivered on her chief campaign promises. In truth, she has been largely invisible in terms of the state's local affairs. (All politics are local, remember?) As I view it, Ms. Clinton spent a large portion of her first term farming relationships and building alliances in Washington, DC keeping an eye to her political future. Since her re-coronation election in 2006, she has done virtually nothing but plan and run her campaign to be president. I will grant that she has done a satisfactory job in showing up for votes in the Senate, though many of those votes have been questionable in judgement, but in terms of serving the people who elected her and delivering on the promises she made, it has been a lukewarm performance at best.
Has Hillary been treated unfairly by the press, while her opponent, Senator Obama, has been given a free pass? To the contrary, it seems to me that the press has been more than active in vetting Mr. Obama, going to the ends of the Earth - in some cases literally, while checking out his schooling on the far side of the planet - to dig up whatever tawdry tidbits were available. Meanwhile, debate after debate is held. Hillary Clinton shows up so often on the Sunday morning chat festivals that I once thought she was the new host of Meet the Press, and yet I never hear these issues of her record being questioned. It would seem that they are specific and applicable to her performance for the people of New York in her only elected office. As someone who bore witness to the free pass Hillary received from the press - not to mention the public- in both of her Senate runs, seeing her and Bill level such a charge at Barack Obama is beyond the pale.
A free pass may have been given, but I believe Bill Clinton was pointing at the wrong candidate.
Submit to BuzzFlash Buzz it
Middle earth journal
Inoperative
In April 1973 Nixon press spokesman Ron Ziegler famously declared all of the administration's previous statements on the Watergate scandal "inoperative." It became clear last week that something similar has happened with respect to the Bush administration's commitments to Israel in connection with the "road map" to Palestinian statehood that President Bush first announced in June 2002.
The United States has abandoned the road map and related commitments in favor of accommodating Palestinian terrorism. As Secretary Rice explained to reporters on Air Force One:
The "road map" for peace, conceived in 2002 by Mr. Bush, had become a hindrance to the peace process, because the first requirement was that the Palestinians stop terrorist attacks.
As a result, every time there was a terrorist bombing, the peace process fell apart and went back to square one. Neither side ever began discussing the "core issues": the freezing of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the rights of Palestinian refugees to return, the outline of Israel's border and the future of Jerusalem.
"The reason that we haven't really been able to move forward on the peace process for a number of years is that we were stuck in the sequentiality of the road map. So you had to do the first phase of the road map before you moved on to the third phase of the road map, which was the actual negotiations of final status," Miss Rice said.
Miss Rice said that what the U.S.-hosted November peace summit in Annapolis did was "break that tight sequentiality ... to say, you can do these in parallel, you can do road-map obligations and negotiation for the final status in parallel."
"You don't want people to get hung up on settlement activity or the fact that the Palestinians haven't fully been able to deal with the terrorist infrastructure and prevent that from moving forward on the negotiations," she said.
Let's take a look at the commitments Secretary Rice has rendered inoperative in her efforts to accommodate Palestinian terrorism to statehood. In his original statement of June 2002 supporting a road map to statehood, Bush laid down conditions:
I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror. I call upon them to build a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty. If the Palestinian people actively pursue these goals, America and the world will actively support their efforts. If the Palestinian people meet these goals, they will be able to reach agreement with Israel and Egypt and Jordan on security and other arrangements for independence.
And when the Palestinian people have new leaders, new institutions and new security arrangements with their neighbors, the United States of America will support the creation of a Palestinian state whose borders and certain aspects of its sovereignty will be provisional until resolved as part of a final settlement in the Middle East.
Inoperative.
President Bush made additional commitments to Prime Minister Sharon in connection with Israel's withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the West Bank. In his April 2004 letter to Sharon, Bush wrote:
First, the United States remains committed to my vision and to its implementation as described in the roadmap. The United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan. Under the roadmap, Palestinians must undertake an immediate cessation of armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere, and all official Palestinian institutions must end incitement against Israel. The Palestinian leadership must act decisively against terror, including sustained, targeted, and effective operations to stop terrorism and dismantle terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. Palestinians must undertake a comprehensive and fundamental political reform that includes a strong parliamentary democracy and an empowered prime minister.
Inoperative.
President Bush called the Annapolis peace conference only this past July. In his statement announcing the conference, Bush provided that attendance was to to be limited to representatives of nations that support a two-state solution, reject violence, recognize Israel's right to exist, and commit to all previous agreements between the parties.
In the interest of securing the attendance of states that oppose Israel's existence, the administraton silently abandoned the criteria it had set for attendance only four months earlier. Although no one noticed, President Bush's July statement had been rendered inoperative.
Powerline
Anti-war Soros funded Iraq study
Brendan Montague
A STUDY that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros.
Soros, 77, provided almost half the £50,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead.
The study, published in 2006, was hailed by antiwar campaigners as evidence of the scale of the disaster caused by the invasion, but Downing Street and President George Bush challenged its methodology.
New research published by The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 151,000 people - less than a quarter of The Lancet estimate - have died since the invasion in 2003.
“The authors should have disclosed the [Soros] donation and for many people that would have been a disqualifying factor in terms of publishing the research,” said Michael Spagat, economics professor at Royal Holloway, University of London.
The Lancet study was commissioned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and led by Les Roberts, an associate professor and epidemiologist at Columbia University. He reportedly opposed the war from the outset.
His team surveyed 1,849 homes at 47 sites across Iraq, asking people about births, deaths and migration in their households.
Professor John Tirman of MIT said this weekend that $46,000 (£23,000) of the approximate £50,000 cost of the study had come from Soros’s Open Society Institute.
Roberts said this weekend: “In retrospect, it was probably unwise to have taken money that could have looked like it would result in a political slant. I am adamant this could not have affected the outcome of the research.”
The Lancet did not break any rules by failing to disclose Soros’s sponsorship.
* Have your say
Probably MORE than 1 out of 12 Massachusetts residents go to bed hungry each night. At least 1 out of 10 are on a diet. And they are the lucky ones - - they will live longer. Starvation in America? What a joke. The chief nutritional affliction of the poor these days is obesity. Ironically eating healthy is cheaper, so they best way to eliminate malnutrition is through teaching the poor how to eat healthy.
VO Reason, Rochester, NY USA
I drove past a billboard for a few months that said 1 out of 12 Massachusetts residents (komrades) goes to bed hungry every night. I believed that even less than the Lancet report. When people start throwing around numbers, you have to look at it with a jaundiced eye no matter who's presenting it, even friends sometimes.
Squishyfur, Peabody, People's Republic of MA
Soros is not anti-war. He's anti-U.S., at least until we've abandoned capitalism. He loathes the idea of democracy, and has committed his resources to converting the U.S. to socialism. In a Euro-style socialist beauracracy he'll have influence in proportion to his vast wealth. rather than having to work through front groups as he does now. That, of course, is my interpretation of his actions as reported here and elsewhere.
shimrod, Suffolk, U.S.A