<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; Elections</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/elections/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 06:51:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>Israel Headed Toward Right or Left?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-puder/israel-headed-toward-right-or-left/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=israel-headed-toward-right-or-left</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-puder/israel-headed-toward-right-or-left/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2014 05:05:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Puder]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Netanyahu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[palestinians]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=247409</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Can Israeli alter the motives of the Jewish State's enemies?]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/israeli-elections.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-247414" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/israeli-elections-450x315.jpg" alt="israeli-elections" width="273" height="191" /></a>Last weekend the <em>New York Times</em> featured what it called “The Opinion Pages &#8211; Room for Debate.” The topic was “If Israel Turns Right, Where will it End Up?” The assumption (Israel Turns Right) was probably motivated by a recent (November 30, 2014) <em>Ha’aretz</em> poll that indicated that if elections were held now, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party would gain seats, the Jewish Home party will gain even more, while Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid party would diminish as previous centrist parties have done, including his father’s (Joseph or “Tommy”) Shinui party. In the same poll, Tzipi Livni’s Hatnuah party would barely pass the threshold for securing seats. The new Governance Law would raise the threshold to 3.25% of the total vote from the previous 2%.</p>
<p>The poll conducted by the left-leaning <em>Ha’aretz</em> newspaper concluded that the Right–Religious parties together would master 65 seats in the 120 seat Knesset (Israeli parliament) with Likud receiving <a href="http://knessetjeremy.com/2014/11/30/dialoghaaretz-poll-likud-24-bayit-yehudi-16-labor-13-kachlon-12-yesh-atid-11-yisrael-beitenu-11/">24</a> seats, Naftali Bennett’s Beit Yehudi (Jewish Home) 16, Avigdor Lieberman’s Israel Beitenu (Israel Our Home) 11, Torah Judaism 8, and Shas, the Sephardic religious party 6.</p>
<p>The new centrist party being formed by Moshe Kahlon, the former Communications Minister in the Likud government is slated by the poll to receive 12 seats, while Lapid’s Yesh Atid would fall from 19 seats to 11. Tzipi Livni’s Hatnuah will get 4 down from 6.</p>
<p>The left bloc will continue to shrink with Labor falling from 15 seats to 13, Meretz maintaining its 6 seats, and the Arab lists combined at 9 down from 11. The date for the next election has been set for March 17, 2015. Given the vicissitudes of the region, and the many points of crisis the Israeli government may have to face, the recent poll might undergo considerable changes.</p>
<p>One thing is clear however, an Israeli government turned Right or Left would face an existential threat from Iran. A left-of-center government would have to face the Iranian challenge, once in power, as much as any right-of-center is likely to. The Palestinians, whether as a unity government (Hamas and Fatah) or the Palestinian Authority (PA) under Mahmoud Abbas, are determined to get their way to statehood through the UN Security Council rather than negotiate with Israel. Abbas and the Palestinians are not so much interested in running a state as they are in isolating and delegitimizing Israel. A left-of-center Israeli government led by Labor’s Yitzhak Herzog will not fare better than Netanyahu with a Palestinian unity government or the PA. Mahmoud Abbas will not and cannot forgo the tactical use of the “Palestinian right of return.” For both, Herzog or Netanyahu, the “right of return” is a non-starter.</p>
<p>Diana Buttu, former legal adviser to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) chairman, Mahmoud Abbas, commented in the <em>NY Times</em> (updated December 7, 2014) on her debate page, charging, “But make no mistake: There are no ‘<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/12/07/if-israel-turns-right-where-will-it-end-up-12/there-are-no-centrists-in-israel">centrists</a>’ in Israel. All Zionist politicians support Israel’s continued military occupation, the construction and expansion of Israeli colonies, the attacks on and siege of the Gaza Strip and, most important, the denial of freedom and equality to Palestinians. For example, Tzipi Livni, the justice minister fired by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has repeatedly voted against Knesset bills seeking to enshrine equality in Israeli laws. In other countries, these politicians would be considered “right-wing extremists,” not centrists.”</p>
<p>Buttu clearly expressed the mindset of Mahmoud Abbas. Using such an expression as “military occupation” is a blatant exaggeration, typical of a Palestinian professional propagandist. She appears to be ignoring the facts, that in <a href="http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/books/maps.htm">Area A</a> (as designated under the Oslo Accords), the Palestinians hold both civilian and security/military control. This includes all the cities of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) with the exception of Jerusalem and the Jewish part of Hebron. In <a href="http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/books/maps.htm">Area B</a>, Palestinians have civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control. This area contains 440 Palestinian villages and their surrounding lands. Area C, which contains the Jewish settlement adjacent to the Green Line, but has a small number of Palestinians, is controlled by Israel. The vast majority of Palestinians in the West Bank are under the PA control. Buttu has ignored the fact that in 2005, Israel relinquished the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians. Israel moreover, demolished all the Jewish settlements there. Gaza is totally controlled by the Palestinians, and specifically, by the Palestinian Islamist Hamas terrorist organization.</p>
<p>The bills that Buttu refers to are those which seek to undermine the Jewish character of Israel, and have nothing to do with the civil, religious, and human rights of Israeli Arab citizens. The vast majority of the Palestinians, as mentioned, are under the control of the PA, not Israel. The so called “attack and Gaza siege” is another perversion of reality. Hamas terrorists have lobbed over 10,000 rockets on Israeli civilians, and last July, the latest war was provoked by Hamas rocketing Israeli cities.</p>
<p>Buttu reveals her disinterest in Palestinians negotiating peace with Israel when she states that, “It is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/12/07/if-israel-turns-right-where-will-it-end-up-12/there-are-no-centrists-in-israel">nonsensical</a> that Palestinians, occupied and stateless, must negotiate their freedom with their occupier and oppressor.” She and her Palestinian terrorist leadership are playing the “victimhood card” to a western world that craves assuaging its own guilt for colonialism, capitalist success, and being supposedly privileged. The truth however is that Palestinians have had endless opportunities to assert their self-determination. In 1937, under the British Peel Commission recommendations, Palestine would have been divided into an Arab and Jewish state, with the Arabs receiving <a href="http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/partition_plan.html">26,700</a> square kilometers of a shrunk Palestinian Mandate (in 1922, Britain sliced off 2/3 of Palestine Mandate to create the Emirate of Trans Jordan), while the Jews would have received a ghettoized area of only 5,000 square kilometers. The Arabs rejected it, and continued their anti-Jewish terror well until the start of WWII in 1939.</p>
<p>Opportunity for an independent Palestinian state came again a decade later in the form of the 1947 UN Partition. It sought to divide Palestine into Arab and Jewish states. Once again the Arabs rejected it because they would not tolerate a Jewish state of any size. The Oslo Process, negotiated by the Labor Party, not the Right, turned sour. Hamas unleashed a campaign of terror against Israeli civilians with a nod of approval from P.L.O. Chairman Yaser Arafat. When President Bill Clinton sought to settle things between the Palestinians and Israel in a July, 2000 Camp David Summit, Israel’s Labor Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered far reaching concessions, including 95% of the West Bank and Gaza and land swaps for the remaining 5%. In addition, it was agreed to establish the Palestinian capital around Jerusalem. Arafat rejected this chance for statehood the same way his Palestinian-Arab predecessors did. He chose instead to launch the Intifada.</p>
<p>It is because the Palestinian leadership failed to educate its people to accept the idea of peace with the Jewish state as a legitimate neighbor, and instead incited its people to consider a Jewish state of any size as illegitimate, that Arafat rejected an opportunity in 2000 to inaugurate a Palestinian state. Had he signed a document that committed him to “end of conflict,” he would probably have been assassinated. That unfortunately is the price of decades of anti-Jewish, anti-Semitic incitement and intolerance. In the end, it does not matter whether Israel turns Right or Left, the same results will occur. A Palestinian rejection of genuine peace with Israel can be counted on.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><strong>Subscribe</strong></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <em>The Glazov Gang</em>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>Facebook.</strong></a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-puder/israel-headed-toward-right-or-left/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lapid’s Political Crack-Up</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/caroline-glick/lapids-political-crack-up/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=lapids-political-crack-up</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/caroline-glick/lapids-political-crack-up/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2014 05:30:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Caroline Glick]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coalition government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Netanyahu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Yair Lapid]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=246744</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why the Israeli Left is incapable of moving to the center. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/1863275564.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-246745" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/1863275564-448x350.jpg" alt="1863275564" width="337" height="263" /></a>Originally published by the <a href="http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Column-One-Lapids-political-crack-up-383704">Jerusalem Post</a>. </em></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">Three days after Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and leader of the Yesh Atid party and now former finance minister Yair Lapid failed to resolve their differences and so thrust Israel into an electoral season less than two years after the last election, the Left’s narrative is already clear. Netanyahu has forced unnecessary, costly elections on the country.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">He did so because his reactionary nature, overweening ego and thin skin made it impossible for him to handle a true reformer like Lapid, who was trying to push the country forward.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">The actual situation is quite different. These elections are necessary. The up to NIS 1.2 billion that taxpayers will have to pay to finance the vote scheduled for March 17 is money well spent. And if the current polls are even close to what the election results will be three months from now, then the public understands that they are necessary and intends to elect a government that will serve it better than the one that just dissolved.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">To be sure, Netanyahu is the one who decided to call elections. But the person responsible for making it impossible for the existing government to function is Lapid. Over the past few months Lapid has had the political equivalent of a nervous breakdown.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">In 2013, Lapid ran as a centrist. The television celebrity’s new party, Yesh Atid, presented itself as the voice of the hard-working middle class whose members love this country and are tired of electing governments that trample their economic interests and take them for granted in favor of special interests, especially the haredim.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">In other words, Lapid ran as his father’s son.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">The late Yosef “Tommy” Lapid’s Shinui party also claimed to be the voice of the middle class and the ideological Center, fighting the special interests, especially the haredim.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">But as economic commentator Rotem Sella explained Thursday on the NRG website, aside from boycotting the haredim, Lapid Jr. did not follow in his father’s footsteps after taking office.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Whereas Shinui was a liberal free market party that supported then-finance minister Netanyahu’s reforms that transformed Israel’s sclerotic, socialist economy into a rapidly growing free market, Lapid and his ministers from Yesh Atid exchanged their capitalist platform for socialist policies immediately upon taking office. In so doing they put Israel on a path to recession and social upheaval.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">As Sella noted, among other things, shortly after taking office Lapid capitulated to the thuggish Histadrut labor federation and agreed not to touch the inflated salaries of state employees – paid for by the middle class taxpayers who voted for him.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">His health minister, Yael German, took steps to wipe out private medical services through draconian taxation and paralyzing regulation of private medical services. Her actions didn’t rescue the bankrupt public health system. They merely served to deny citizens the right to pay for better healthcare and to deny doctors the opportunity to make a living even remotely commensurate with the value of their skills.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">In recent months, Lapid’s signature policies were his decision to expand the deficit in order to increase welfare spending and his draft bill to cancel VAT for select first-time home purchasers.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">The former policy has already damaged Israel’s international credit rating. The latter policy has been criticized across the board by economists as a populist move that will raise housing prices and waste NIS 3b. in taxpayer money – that is, well more than the cost of the elections.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Lapid’s refusal to reconsider his policies despite their self-evident foolishness was a key cause of the government’s fall. And his insistence that only mean-spirited reactionaries oppose his plans is evidence that he lacks the capacity to understand how people perceive his behavior.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">That brings us to his ideological transformation in office from a self-proclaimed centrist security hawk to a member in good standing of the radical Left.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">The votes for at least half of the 19 mandates Lapid won in the last election were given to him by the center-right. Yesh Atid contended for these votes against the rightist Bayit Yehudi party led by Economy Minister Naftali Bennett.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Netanyahu threw many of the ballots Lapid’s way when he opened a vicious attack against Bennett in the final weeks of the campaign.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Out of respect for his voters, Lapid gave his first policy address at Ariel University in Samaria. During the coalition talks he and Bennett formed an alliance to force Netanyahu to take both of their parties into the government.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Without Bennett it is entirely possible that Lapid would have spent the last two years as head of the opposition.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Yet, within a few months of taking office, Lapid began a gradual slide to the Left. In recent months the slide became a steep and rapid descent as his broadsides against Netanyahu and the Right became ever more frequent and extreme.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Lapid’s most radical position has been his unhinged opposition in recent weeks to the draft basic law defining Israel as the Jewish nation-state.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">For those with short memories, the draft law began as an initiative of the Livni-led Kadima party, co-sponsored by nearly 80% of its Knesset faction. Yet, much to the consternation of his Zionist voters, Lapid caused untold damage to Israel by proclaiming that the anodyne draft legislation, most of the provisions of which are already anchored in standing law, and which he supported until just recently, is “anti-democratic.”</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">If that wasn’t enough, during his press conference on Wednesday night, Lapid unleashed a wild attack on Netanyahu. Lapid proclaimed that during Operation Protective Edge last summer, Netanyahu’s cabinet “lost its faith in his ability to manage” the war. This allegation says more about Lapid than it does about Netanyahu.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">After all, if he believed that Netanyahu was incompetent to lead the nation in war, how did he dare to stay silent? Why did he repeatedly vote in favor of Netanyahu’s decisions? Lapid accused Netanyahu of destroying Israel’s relations with the US. He claimed that he receives frequent calls from US senators demanding explanations for Netanyahu’s “patronizing, and contemptuous” behavior toward the US.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">The problem with Lapid’s allegations is that the public doesn’t believe them. During and in the immediate aftermath of the war, Netanyahu’s popularity was sky high.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">As for relations with the US, this week Bar- Ilan University’s BESA Center released the results of its biennial survey of Israeli opinion of relations with the US. According to the survey, Israelis blame US President Barack Obama, not Netanyahu, for the crisis in relations with the White House.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Whereas 73 percent of Israelis believe the US is a loyal ally of Israel, only 37% believe that Obama’s position toward the country is positive. Sixty-one percent believe he is either negatively inclined toward Israel or neutral.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">According to Haaretz, the White House recognizes that the Israeli public blames it for the crisis in relations. On Thursday, the paper reported that the administration was planning to escalate its anti-Israel policies, but now will put them on hold. Administration officials reportedly fear that US pressure on Israel during the elections campaign will increase public support for Netanyahu.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">During his press conference, Lapid insisted that Netanyahu will not serve again as premier.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">But according to polls, Netanyahu has no rivals for the job. It is not merely that nearly three times as many people think that Netanyahu is the best person to serve as prime minister when compared to his closest contender, Labor Party leader Isaac Herzog. It’s also that the polls show right-wing parties picking up seats, while Lapid’s party is likely to lose more than half it seats in the Knesset.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Far from Lapid’s insistent claim that Netanyahu is “cut off” from the public, it is Lapid who sees nothing but his own reflection.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">According to a report Wednesday published by the NRG website, members of Yesh Atid’s Knesset faction are furious with Lapid. They believe that his move to the Left is destroying the party.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">And they are correct.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">The 10 mandates from free market supporters on the center-right that Lapid won two years ago will go to actual center-right and rightist parties. Likud, the centrist party just formed by former Likud minister Moshe Kahlon, Bayit Yehudi and Yisrael Beytenu will all pick up votes from disaffected Yesh Atid voters.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">All that remains of Yesh Atid’s great promise are nine Knesset seats which Lapid took two years ago from Labor, Kadima and Meretz.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Today the leftist parties are polling 33 Knesset seat total, and it is hard to see how that number can rise.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">This brings us to the reason these elections are so necessary. Lapid’s con job on the voters two years ago meant that the public didn’t receive the center-right government it wanted. Lapid taught the public that there are no center-left parties, only leftist parties that pretend to be centrist for electoral purposes.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">These elections are necessary because the public hasn’t changed in two years. It still wants a center-right government that supports free market economics. And now, according to the polls, the public understands what it needs to do to get the government it wants. It needs to boot out the Left.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">And so we arrive at the polling data. Whereas the undisguised Left is where it has been for the past 10 years, at roughly 20% of the electorate, the center-right is polling 50%.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">With the haredi parties, Netanyahu can form a coalition government with no leftist parties that rests on the support of nearly two-thirds of the seats in the Knesset.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Until now such a coalition was deemed politically unattractive by the political consultant class, because the public believed that only the Left could call itself the Center. Now, thanks to Lapid, the public sees the truth. The Left in power means lies, bad policies, and political chaos. The Left out of power means truth, good policies and political stability.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Back in the halcyon days of 2013, when Yesh Atid was the toast of the town, Lapid told us that the “old politics” are dead, and that “new politics,” had won the day. These “new politics” would propel the country to new heights of good government and economic growth.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Lapid of course was lying. But his slogan might work for the Likud in the coming election cycle.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">By finally exposing the Left as incapable of ever moving toward the Center, Lapid has taught us what we need to do to get the government we want. And the polls indicate that the public has learned the lesson. The price tag for a truly center-right government with liberal economic policies is up to NIS 1.2b. That’s a liquidation sale price.</span></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/caroline-glick/lapids-political-crack-up/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Andrew Klavan: How the Media See the Midterms</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/truthrevolt-org/andrew-klavan-how-the-media-see-the-midterms/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=andrew-klavan-how-the-media-see-the-midterms</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/truthrevolt-org/andrew-klavan-how-the-media-see-the-midterms/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2014 05:57:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[TruthRevolt.org]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Midterm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=246144</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Truth Revolt video. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong><span style="color: #000000;">In this special episode, our</span><span style="color: #000000;"> yes-he&#8217;s-happily-married-ladies host examines how the wise sages of main stream media covered, or didn&#8217;t cover, the recent mid-term elections. See the video and transcript below. </span></strong></p>
<p><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/FKLy-IcdH7c" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p style="color: #000000;">TRANSCRIPT:</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">I’m Andrew Klavan and this is the Revolting Truth.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">The political landscape has changed and now that some time has passed, let’s try to get at the deeper meaning of the midterm elections.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">In the final results, Republicans won eleventy hundred Senate seats out of a possible thirty-three, and approximately a gazillion governorships including four in the seven states that only exist in Barack Obama’s imagination.  I know many of you untrained amateur political hobbyists out there may feel this means that voters have repudiated the Obama presidency&#8230;  and then thrown it to the ground and stomped on it&#8230;  then set it on fire&#8230;  and then mocked its dying agonies&#8230;  while feeding the flames with crumpled Hope posters&#8230;  that once seemed to promise so very, very much and now are only ashes.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">And yet President Obama himself says he still believes he has the love of a grateful nation. The nation is Iran but Iranians are people too, some of them.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">To separate the facts from the things the president says, let’s turn to the sharp-eyed, clear-eyed, blue-eyed, google-eyed experts who populate the mainstream media.  Only their incisive analysis can help us reach the revolting truth.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">For instance, the mainstream Washington Post determined that this was a so-called Seinfeld election that was about nothing, whereas the mainstream Daily Beast allowed it was more of a Seinfeld election that was actually about nothing.  Mainstream New York magazine said this was really a Seinfeld election about nothing but mainstream columnists at CNN, Huffington Post and USA Today said this looked to them like a Seinfeld election and was about nothing.  This, of course, is as opposed to being, say, a screw-off-leftist-jackass election that was about telling leftist jackasses to screw off.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">The mainstream New York Times, a former newspaper, ran an op-ed saying there shouldn’t be any mid-term elections, while mainstream ABC, CBS and NBC simply pretended there weren’t any.  According to our friends at the Media Research Center, mainstream ABC World News Tonight went seven weeks in September and October without running a single story about the midterms, while mainstream NBC and CBS ran only a tiny percentage of the number of stories they ran before the Democrat midterm victory in 2006.  Network news executives were asked why they barely covered the upcoming Republican tsunami but they couldn’t hear the question because they had their fingers in their ears and were singing lalala very loudly.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">But in the wake of the crushing, excoriating, devastating, humiliating, crushing and humiliating and devastating and humiliating rejection of Obama and the Democrat agenda, mainstream news commentators were quick to explain how Republicans winning elections meant Republicans were losing elections.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">Matthew Dowd from the mainstream ABC News network said the Republican election triumph left the Republican brand “still very damaged,” whereas Jim Vanderhei of the mainstream website Politico said the GOP victory will put the party in “a hell of a jam” and Mika Brzezinski at the extremely mainstream MSNBC said the Republican wave will hurt Republicans because it will “embolden their self-destructive ways.”</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">And while Republicans did crush the Democrats&#8230; and did see them driven before them while hearing the lamentations of their women, Ben Smith of the mainstream website Buzzfeed said the elections meant surprisingly little, while Chris Cillizza at the still mainstream Washington Post called the elections “boring, vapid and inconsequential.”  Chris Matthews made the following face.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">So there you have it:  according to the mainstream media, the midterms were elections about nothing that shouldn’t have been allowed and didn’t really happen but if they did they didn’t matter and Republicans lost them even if they won.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">Now some of you may say this sort of election analysis only proves that so-called mainstream journalists are really just a bunch of ideologically corrupt leftist shills seeking to twist the facts to advance an extremist agenda that’s completely out of keeping with the founding principles of the United States.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">I’m Andrew Klavan with the Revolting Truth.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/truthrevolt-org/andrew-klavan-how-the-media-see-the-midterms/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Republicans Don&#8217;t Get It</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ben-shapiro/why-republicans-dont-get-it/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=why-republicans-dont-get-it</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ben-shapiro/why-republicans-dont-get-it/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2014 04:47:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ben Shapiro]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enthusiasm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GOP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=243544</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The folly of sidelining the conservative base. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/aaavote-here.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-243546" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/aaavote-here-450x337.jpg" alt="Americans Go To The Polls To Elect The Next U.S. President" width="331" height="248" /></a>A new poll this week shows 2012 presidential nominee and 2008 primary candidate Mitt Romney leading the field of potential 2016 Republican candidates. According to ABC News/Washington Post, 21 percent of Republican voters would vote for Romney in the primaries; Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee tie at 10 percent, followed by Rand Paul, Chris Christie and Paul Ryan. Altogether, some 44 percent of Republican primary voters want an &#8220;establishment&#8221; candidate — by which we mean a candidate for whom social issues are secondary, immigration reform is primary and economics dominates.</p>
<p>The establishment donors on the coasts see this poll and believe that a consolidated funding effort mobilized behind the Chosen One (Romney, Bush, Christie or Ryan) could avoid a messy primary and keep the powder dry for a 2016 showdown with Hillary.</p>
<p>The conservative base knows this, and they groan.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s because the conservative base understands that what motivates them is not the marginal tax rate — nobody in the country knows, offhand, his or her effective tax rate — but values. And none of the top priorities for Republican donors match the fire-in-the-belly issues that motivate the folks who knock on doors, phone bank and provide the under-$50 donations that could power a Republican to victory.</p>
<p>The divide between the establishment and the base represents a divide between the wallet and the working man, the penthouse and the pews, the Ivy Leagues and the homeschools. Which is why Republican leadership quietly assures its top donors that should Republicans win the Senate, their first legislative push will encompass corporate tax reform and immigration reform.</p>
<p>They will not push primarily for border security, or for protection of religious freedom, or for repeal of Common Core. They will not use their opportunity to govern as an opportunity to draw contrast between conservatism and leftism. Instead, they will seek &#8220;common ground&#8221; in a vain attempt to show the American people that efficiency deserves re-election.</p>
<p>And the American people will go to sleep, conservatives will vomit in their mouths, and leftists will demonize Republicans all the same.</p>
<p>Conservatives understand that politics simply reflect underlying values. That&#8217;s why they are passionate. They don&#8217;t vote their pocketbooks. They vote their guts, and their guts tell them that leftism is immoral on the most basic level.</p>
<p>Republicans, on the other hand, believe that politics are just business by other means. That means that Republicans think Americans, left and right, share the same underlying values. That&#8217;s a lie, and it&#8217;s a self-defeating lie at that.</p>
<p>Until Republicans begin to appreciate the moral conflict between right and left, they will dishearten the right and provide easy targets for the left. The nominee won&#8217;t matter; elections won&#8217;t matter. And the alienation of the American conservative will deepen and broaden, until, one day, it bursts forth with a renewed fire that consumes the Republican Party whole.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ben-shapiro/why-republicans-dont-get-it/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>45</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The GOP’s Missing Electoral Link </title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-horowitz/the-gops-missing-electoral-link%e2%80%a8/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-gops-missing-electoral-link%25e2%2580%25a8</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-horowitz/the-gops-missing-electoral-link%e2%80%a8/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2014 04:28:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[moral indictments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Take No Prisoners]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=240566</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The crucial importance of framing moral indictments.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/bb.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-240392" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/bb-227x350.jpg" alt="bb" width="227" height="350" /></a><strong>To order David Horowitz&#8217;s new book, <em>Take No Prisoners</em>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Take-No-Prisoners-Battle-Defeating/dp/1621572560/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1406631034&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=take+no+prisoners">click here</a>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>This article is reprinted from <a href="http://www.redstate.com/">Redstate.com</a>.</strong></p>
<p>Paul Ryan is a smart man, and probably represents the mainstream thinking of the Republican Party, though like every ambitious politician he likes to position himself as a critic of the crowd. But in a recent interview with Matthew Continetti, Ryan started out well by complaining about the GOP consultant class. “The consultant class always says play it safe, choose a risk-averse strategy. I don’t think we have the luxury of doing that.” But then when called on to provide a non-risk averse strategy, he comes up with this: “We need to treat people like adults by offering them alternatives.” But what Republican consultant would tell his candidate <em>not</em> to offer alternative policies and ideas? There is none.</p>
<p>Every Republican thinks that offering a positive vision and new policies is the key to winning elections. Of course sometimes, as in the midterms this fall, the Democrats have screwed up so big that they are practically handing Republicans a victory. Just don’t count on it for 2016. In fact, Ryan embraces the conventional GOP wisdom:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;The only way we beat an Obama third term is to offer a spirited alternative and bring it up to a crescendo where we’re really giving the country a very clear choice of policies and ideas.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>I wouldn’t bet on it. You can’t give the country a clear choice of policies and ideas when the Democrats are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to label you racists, sexists, homophobes enemies of the poor, selfish and uncaring. If Republicans are to win national elections they have to come up with an answer to these attacks. And the only answer is a counter-attack. I’ve laid out the basis for an effective counter-attack in my new book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Take-No-Prisoners-Battle-Defeating/dp/1621572560/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1406631034&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=take+no+prisoners"><em>Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan For Defeating the Left</em></a> (Regnery 2014). But I’m not holding my breath that Republicans will embrace the strategy I recommend. More likely they will go into the next national election like crash-dummies as they usually do.</p>
<p>When you examine the Democrat attacks they are all <em>moral</em> indictments: racist, uncaring, anti-woman, selfish. In contrast, Republicans criticize Democrats for having unworkable policies. Who do you think is going to win this debate? If a voter thinks someone is a racist, how seriously are they going to take his policy ideas? The same reaction awaits candidates who are seen as selfish defenders of the greedy rich, namely, Republicans.</p>
<p>What’s the Republican counter-attack? There is none. But here’s how to think of one: Democrat policies are not merely wrong-headed, they’re destructive. Democrats control every major city in America – Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Milwaukee – and I could go on and on. They’ve controlled these cities for 50 to 100 years. Everything that is wrong with the inner cities of America, every policy that adversely affects the impoverished minorities who live there, Democrats are responsible for.</p>
<p>Democrat policies, for example, have trapped millions of poor African American and Hispanic children in schools that don’t teach them, year in and year out, because they’re run for the benefit of the leftwing teacher unions and the Democratic Party. Democrats will fight to the death to keep these children from getting scholarships known as “vouchers” that would allow them to find private schools that would teach them. Yet Democrats, including the president himself, send their own children to private schools. How racist is that? Yet when did you ever hear a Republican call a Democrat a racist over this atrocity?</p>
<p>Consider the consequences of Democratic misrule: millions of poor African American and Hispanic children who will never be educated and never get a shot at the American dream. Instead they will be condemned to lives of poverty and crime. The Democratic colony of Chicago is a war zone. Who is responsible for all the lost young African American lives in Chicago? But Republicans are too polite to mention it.</p>
<p>In Ferguson, Missouri we have witnessed the month long spectacle of a Democratic lynch mob led by one of the nation’s leading racists, Al Sharpton, who just happens to be the President’s adviser on race. Rev. Sharpton has been mightily abetted by the Democratic Attorney General of the United States, who is conducting a witch-hunt against the Ferguson police force. The Democratic Party <em>is</em> the party of racism, but Republicans are too timid to mention it.</p>
<p>As ever on national security, Democrats have disarmed us in the face of the Islamic crusade against the West, the greatest threat we have ever faced as a nation; they have attacked our borders so that we can’t prevent terrorists and criminals from crossing them; they have forced our retreat from Iraq and the Middle East creating a vacuum that has been filled by the armies of ISIS and other well-armed barbarians who have sworn to kill us. Democrats have betrayed our country and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Syrians and Libyans slaughtered by the terrorist armies their policies have unleashed. Yet where is the Republican voice using the language appropriate to these <i>betrayals</i>?</p>
<p>Yet it is precisely this moral language that Republicans must use to push back the Democrat slanderers who have been so effective in winning elections. Barack Obama is the most incompetent, anti-American, leftwing radical ever nominated by a major political party. Democrats did that. Hold them responsible.</p>
<p>Whatever words Republicans finally use, they have to 1) Get used to the fact that politics is a no-holds-barred street fight and nice guys finish last; 2) Get used to the fact that they are going to have to actually <i>attack</i> Democrats and make it hurt: and 3) Frame their attacks as a <em>moral</em> indictment – or else they will be pulverized by the moral indictments framed by their opponents.</p>
<p>This is my advice. My bet: Paul Ryan and the Republican Party will ignore it.</p>
<p>*</p>
<p><em>Don&#8217;t miss <strong>David Horowitz</strong> discussing <a href="http://www.blackbookoftheamericanleft.com/">The Black Book of the American Left</a> in <strong>The Glazov Gang&#8217;s</strong> two-part video series below:</em><br />
<b></b></p>
<p><strong>Part I:</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/QL9WUvnJ_Cs" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>Part II:</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/eeN2K6romr8" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-horowitz/the-gops-missing-electoral-link%e2%80%a8/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Meaning of the European Elections</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/the-meaning-of-the-european-elections/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-meaning-of-the-european-elections</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/the-meaning-of-the-european-elections/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2014 04:20:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Euro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[european union]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[France]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marine le pen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nigel Farage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=226315</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Citizens put the European Union in the crosshairs. 
]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/20140524_EUP002_0.jpg"><img class=" wp-image-226316 alignleft" alt="20140524_EUP002_0" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/20140524_EUP002_0-450x290.jpg" width="315" height="203" /></a>A series of stunning election results for the European Parliament have rocked the continent’s political establishment. In France, Marine Le Pen&#8217;s National Front (FN) </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://news.yahoo.com/europe-votes-super-sunday-far-spotlight-090146106.html">scored</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> its first victory in a nationwide vote over both the center-right UMP and President François Hollande’s ruling Socialist party. In England, The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) also </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10855972/Ukip-storms-European-elections.html">notched</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> its initial triumph, beating the Labor and Conservative parties. Both victories were indicative of a surge best described as an anti-EU, anti-mass immigrant wave aimed at establishment politicians and the apparently untenable status quo.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Le Pen minced no words in describing her victory. &#8220;The people have spoken loud and clear&#8230; they no longer want to be led by those outside our borders, by EU commissioners and technocrats who are unelected,” she declared. &#8220;They want to be protected from globalization and take back the reins of their destiny.” </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The National Front garnered 25 percent of the vote, outpacing the UMP at 21 percent, and Hollande’s Socialists at 14.5 percent. The defeat marks the second in a row for the Socialists, who lost dozens of town halls last March.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The news was </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10855972/Ukip-storms-European-elections.html">just as good</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> for UKIP, which captured 27.5 precent of the vote, with Labor at 25.4 percent, and the Conservatives coming in third with 24 percent. UKIP, founded in 1993, gained 23 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) compared to 18 for both the Labor and Conservative parties, and their victory marked the first time since 1910 that a national election was not won by either the Conservatives or Labor. UKIP’s charismatic leader, Nigel Farage, predicted this victory would act as a springboard towards mounting a serious challenge in next year’s general election. “We will go on next year to the general election with a targeted strategy and I promise you this – you haven’t heard the last of us,” Mr Farage said. That targeted strategy includes mounting a challenge in 20 to 30 constituencies next year. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Farage explained the genesis of his triumph. “The political establishment will be terrified by this. They will all have to do a very large amount of soul-searching and realize that the usual platitude ‘We’re listening’ isn’t enough,” he contended, adding that Labor and the Lib Dems suffered the greatest losses as the result of UKIP’s triumph. “It is going to be disastrous for Ed Miliband, disastrous for Nick Clegg and a poor night for David Cameron,” he added. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">He also echoed the sentiments of Le Pen. &#8220;The whole European project has been a lie,&#8221; Farage said on a television link-up with Brussels. &#8220;I don&#8217;t just want Britain to leave the European Union, I want Europe to leave the European Union.”</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Other EU nations realized surprising outcomes as well. In Denmark, the anti-immigration and anti-EU Danish People&#8217;s Party </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/05/far-right-parties-sweep-eu-polls-20145261436233584.html">won</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> its country&#8217;s EU election, garnering 26.7 percent of the vote and four of 13 MEP slots. In Sweden, the Feminist Initiative Party won 7 percent of the vote and representation in the EU Parliament for the first time, while the Green Party surged from percent from 11 percent in 2009 to 17.1 percent, and the Sweden Democrats rose from 3.3 percent to 7 percent over the same period.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">In Greece, the left-wing anti-austerity and Euro-skeptic Syriza party captured  26.6 percent of the Greek vote, pushing the current governing party, New Democracy, into second place with 22.8 percent. The extremist Golden Dawn party, a former neo-Nazi organization whose leader and members await trial for crimes including murder, arson and extortion, captured 9.4 percent of the vote, giving them three MEPs. In Austria, the Freedom Party, which ran on halving the nation’s contributions to the EU, a referendum on the EU&#8217;s crucial bailout fund, and yet another anti-immigrant platform, gained 20 percent of the vote.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">These results were partially offset by other outcomes. In Italy, Premier Matteo Renzi’s center-left Democratic Party </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303903304579586150978707772">won</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> about 41 percent of the vote, marking its best performance to date. The anti-establishment Five-Star Movement, led by former comedian Beppe Grillo, garnered 21 percent of the vote, down four percent from its spectacular win in the general election last year. In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel&#8217;s conservatives claimed victory with 35.3 percent of the vote, but the center-left Social Democrats made strong gains, and the Alternative for Germany, a new anti-EU party created in 2013, gained 7 percent of the vote and first-time representation in Brussels. And in the Netherlands, the right-wing Euro-skeptic Party for Freedom led by Geert Wilders surprisingly lost an MEP, dropping its total to four. Nonetheless, Wilders released a statement saying his party looked forward to working with France’s Le Pen, referring to her as &#8220;the next French president.”</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The voting began last Thursday in Britain and the Netherlands, but the majority of the 28 EU member states voted on Sunday. Turnout was relatively light. Of the 388 million Europeans who were eligible to vote, only 43.1 percent exercised that right, barely higher than 2009’s all-time low of 43 percent. Turnout was lowest in Slovakia at a record-setting 13 percent, and highest in Belgium at 90 percent where voting is compulsory and a general election was held on the same day. But the overall results were stark: while the combination of pro-EU center-left and center-right parties will keep control of the 751-seat EU legislature, the number of Euro-skeptic MEPs will more than double.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Writing for Breitbart London, James Delingpole </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/26/UKIP-why-these-election-results-matter-and-why-the-political-class-will-tell-you-they-don-t">explains</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> that despite every effort by the political establishment to downplay or deliberately misconstrue the results of the elections, it marks the beginning of a revolution &#8220;which will completely transform the face of politics across Europe and which will inevitably lead to the destruction of the European Union.” </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Furthermore, he explains why in terms that should resonate deeply—with the </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">American</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> public. &#8220;What these election results symbolise is the depth of disgust felt across Britain and through continental Europe at the remoteness, incompetence, complacency and dispiriting saminess of the political class (and its amen corner in the mainstream media, in the corporations, in the bureaucracy and the judiciary),” he writes. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">It remains to be seen if Americans will reject our own version of top-down bureaucracy populated by a tone-deaf ruling class, determined to embrace such dubious initiatives as comprehensive immigration reform, or global warming legislation&#8211;championed by the mainstream media echo chamber and various members of the corporate class. For the longest time, the American left has yearned for our nation to emulate Europe. If this rejectionist avalanche is any indication, the November mid-term election may indeed see that wish fulfilled in a way that the Left hadn&#8217;t expected.</span></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/the-meaning-of-the-european-elections/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>34</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8216;Earthquake&#8217; in the U.K.</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/enza-ferreri/earthquake-in-the-u-k/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=earthquake-in-the-u-k</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/enza-ferreri/earthquake-in-the-u-k/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2014 04:28:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Enza Ferreri]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Britain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[european union]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Immigration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labour]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liberal democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UKIP]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=226271</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Anti-EU party upsets all current paradigms of British politics.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/635156-1bc4c180-e478-11e3-b327-fc34ef98ae31.jpg"><img class=" wp-image-226273 alignleft" alt="635156-1bc4c180-e478-11e3-b327-fc34ef98ae31" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/635156-1bc4c180-e478-11e3-b327-fc34ef98ae31-450x303.jpg" width="315" height="212" /></a>&#8220;An earthquake&#8221; is how the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) described what happened Thursday May 22 when all Britain voted to elect its share of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and various parts of the country voted to elect local councils.</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">While the results of the Euro Elections were not announced until Sunday to wait for the results of the whole European Union, where some countries voted later, the local election results were known immediately, and were pretty much as Nigel Farage, the UKIP leader, described them: an earthquake.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">In a country with a three-main-party system (Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats), the UKIP became firmly established as the fourth party. It didn&#8217;t gain overall control of any local council, but that doesn&#8217;t tell the whole story.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Labour won 338 more councillors than it previously had, the Conservatives were down 231 councillors, the Liberal Democrats took a bashing losing 307, as many as 40 percent of their councillors, and UKIP went from two to an astonishing 163 councillors, turning from a fringe, tiny party into a serious contender for government.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">But it was last night, at the European Elections, that UKIP got a real triumph. Not only did it top the polls with more votes than all other parties for the first time in its history, but its victory also marked the first time in which a nationally-held election has not been won by either the Conservative Party or the Labour Party since 1906.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">This historical event upsets all the current paradigms of British politics. For a start, it makes it much more difficult to predict future election results, including the 2015 general elections for the British Parliament, the &#8220;real&#8221; polls that will decide who&#8217;s going to govern the UK.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">A three-party system is easier to understand and forecast than a four-party one. Without UKIP, Labour might have been cast as the next British government, benefiting from the dissatisfaction from the supposed &#8220;cuts&#8221; and &#8220;austerity&#8221; measures that the present coalition of Tories and Lib Dems in government had to enforce to heal at least in part the ruinously irresponsible economy and welfare policies of the past Labour administration.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Something similar happened in other parts of Europe, hence the BBC&#8217;s headline, &#8220;Eurosceptic &#8216;earthquake&#8217; rocks EU elections,&#8221; in reference to the parallel result of Marine Le Pen&#8217;s Front National which <a href="http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27559714">won</a> a record victory in France. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Back in the UK, the Liberal Democrats were almost wiped out from the European Parliament, being left with just one MEP of the 11 they previously had. This is Catherine Zena Bearder, standing in the South East, the largest region in the UK, where my party, one-year-old Liberty GB, got 2494 votes.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">These results show a clear shift in public opinion towards a decidedly anti-immigration, anti-European-Union stance.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The reaction of the (previously) three main parties and of the liberal media is interesting because it shows that they simply don&#8217;t get it.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">They cling to justifications, rationalizations, excuses, pedantic nitpicking, like &#8220;it hasn&#8217;t been an earthquake because UKIP has no control of a single council&#8221; or &#8220;it&#8217;s just a temporary protest vote. They&#8217;ll come back to us.&#8221;</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The Lib Dems project onto the UKIP&#8217;s future what happened to them. The Lib Dems, never genuinely contemplating the possibility of being in government, were ruined by their experience in power, where they didn&#8217;t keep their utopian promises to the electorate. In an act of wishful thinking the Lib Dems predict that the same will happen to UKIP.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">My favorite is the reaction of Labour. Faithful to their Marxist heritage, they explain everything away with the economy. People on the doorstep tell us that they are not concerned about immigration per se, Labour says, but only about its economic consequences for jobs, wages, housing and so on.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">We&#8217;ll sort these things out, they continue, the usual Labour way: by wasting more of public money and increasing taxes.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">They don&#8217;t realize that no people &#8220;on the doorstep&#8221; will tell any Labour representative that they don&#8217;t want immigration for reasons of culture and identity, not just economics, lest they be considered racist by the aforementioned Labour person.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">And UKIP took votes from all parties, including Labour, whose traditional base of working-class voters got progressively dissatisfied with it.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">People who until now voted for the mainstream establishment parties &#8212; and people who didn&#8217;t vote at all &#8212; have decided to stop being silent and take action by choosing a party that says many of the things they think but cannot express.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">We all take great hope and encouragement from this trend.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">It took UKIP 20 years from its foundation to get to this point, and it struggled for recognition for a very long time.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">There was a time when a vote for UKIP was considered wasted, but it turned out to be instrumental in putting pressure on the Tories on the issue of leaving the European Union. There will be a time when voting for Liberty GB will put pressure on UKIP on the issue of the threat of Britain&#8217;s Islamization, on which Farage&#8217;s party has so far been persistently silent.</span></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/enza-ferreri/earthquake-in-the-u-k/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>39</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Who Is the Future Egyptian President?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-puder/who-is-the-future-egyptian-president/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=who-is-the-future-egyptian-president</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-puder/who-is-the-future-egyptian-president/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2014 04:05:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Puder]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al-Sisi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[egypt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Morsi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[muslim brotherhood]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=225767</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Abdel Fattah al-Sisi may win in a landslide, but can he end Egypt’s instability?  ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Abdel-Fattah.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-225769" alt="Abdel-Fattah" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Abdel-Fattah.jpg" width="347" height="217" /></a>Egypt will hold presidential elections later this month (May 26-27), and most political pundits believe that Field-Marshal Abdel Fattah al-Sisi will win in a landslide.   Al-Sisi (will be 60-years old in November) has formally shed his military uniform and donned civilian clothes, but that has not eased the resentment of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and its supporters.  Al-Sisi ousted the former President, Mohammad Morsi, who is languishing in prison along with other MB leaders.  The July 3, 2013 coup carried out by al-Sisi amounted to a second such coup in Egypt within three years.</p>
<p>The enigmatic al-Sisi, who graduated from Egypt’s military academy in 1977, has spent nearly 37 years in the military.  In August 2012, President Morsi appointed al-Sisi as Minister of Defense, and the interim President Adly Mansour promoted him from general to Field Marshal, Egypt’s top military post.  Previously, al-Sisi served as Commander of the Northern Military region headquartered in Alexandria, and then as Director of Military Intelligence and Reconnaissance.  He was later admitted to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces of Egypt (SCAF), as its youngest member.  SCAF assumed power in Egypt during the revolution that ended the 30-year reign of Hosni Mubarak as President of Egypt. In June 2012, SCAF handed over power to the elected president Mohammad Morsi.</p>
<p>In a recent speech al-Sisi characterized the MB as “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/06/world/middleeast/ex-general-vows-to-end-brotherhood-if-elected.html?_r=0" target="_blank">political stupidity and Religious stupidity”</a>  and vowed to eliminate the MB. Al-Sisi, in a televised interview pointed out that on June 30, 2013 the Egyptian people had called for an end to the MB when huge throngs of Egyptians marched to protest President Morsi rule.  He insisted that there could be no reconciliation with them (MB), because the MB tricked those who voted for them, and were therefore rejected by the Egyptian people.</p>
<p>In explaining his opposition to Islamism and the MB, al Sisi argued that the belief of the MB is that politics should be subservient to Islam.  He maintained that there has never been a state based on religion in Islam. Al-Sisi was quoted by <i>Reuters</i> (May 9, 2014) as saying: “I see that the religious discourse in the entire Islamic world has cost Islam its <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/05/09/uk-egypt-sisi-religion-idUKKBN0DP0XM20140509" target="_blank">humanity</a>.  This requires us, and for that matter all leaders, to review their positions.”</p>
<p>Al-Sisi’s outward pious appearance reminds many Egyptian pundits of Anwar Sadat, but al-Sisi’s presidential campaign managers seek to present him more like the popular Egyptian revolutionary president Abdul Nasser, who helped depose the monarchy and disbanded the MB. President Sadat on the other hand used the MB against the political Left only to have the MB assassinate him.  Sadat like Sisi was a pious Sunni Muslim.</p>
<p>According to <i>Al-Ahram Weekly</i>, an independent newspaper asked al-Sisi whether he has ever dreamed of becoming head of the Egyptian military.  Then Army chief al-Sisi replied “the armed forces or something <a href="http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/Print/6035.aspx" target="_blank">bigger</a>.” The interviewer then asked if he thought he would be at the throne of Egypt. To which al-Sisi replied that he had been inspired by a vision in which he saw himself carrying a sword with the words “No God but God and Muhammad is the Prophet of God.” In the same dream, he also received a promise from the late president Anwar Sadat that he would be president of Egypt.</p>
<p>While there is no love lost for al-Sisi by the MB and other Islamists, some secular critics are alarmed by al-Sisi’s refusal to provide a clear answer regarding parliamentary oversight of the powerful military.  All that al-Sisi could say was that the army “is a <a href="http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2014/05/07/al-sisi-says-knew-mb-rule-march-2013/" target="_blank">great institution</a>, and I hope to God that all of Egypt rises to this level.”</p>
<p>The May 7, 2014 report of al-Sisi’s interview in <i>The Daily News of Egypt</i> also touched on a variety of topics including the MB, and foreign and domestic policy.  In discussing Israeli-Palestinian relations, al-Sisi called on the Egyptian people not to allow ill-feelings towards Gaza-based Hamas.  He went on to say that Egypt “<a href="http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2014/05/07/al-sisi-says-knew-mb-rule-march-2013/" target="_blank">respects all charters</a>,” including peace with Israel, adding that Israel had a “real opportunity to give the Palestinians hope.”  He added that he will visit Israel if the Jewish State will move forward on the Palestinian issue.  Asked if he would be ready to visit Israel or invite an Israeli leader to visit Egypt, al-Sisi replied that all Israel has to do is to agree to Palestinian State with a capital in East Jerusalem.</p>
<p>On other foreign policy issues al-Sisi said that he would make his first foreign trip as president to Saudi Arabia (he served military attaché in Riyadh earlier in his military career).  The Saudis have been al-Sisi staunchest supporters in removing Morsi, and have financed Egypt’s military purchases from Russia.   In the interview, al-Sisi revealed that as Defense Minister he visited Russia, and confirmed that “Military relations with Russia were <a href="http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2014/05/07/al-sisi-says-knew-mb-rule-march-2013/" target="_blank">not interrupted</a> and much of the equipment for the army comes from Russia”</p>
<p>In a May 15, 2014 interview with <i>Reuters</i> al-Sisi asked for US help to combat Jihadi terrorism.  He called for the resumption of $1.3 billion in US military aid, which was partially frozen after his crackdown on the MB.  Asked for his message to Obama al-Sisi said, “We are fighting a war against <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/15/us-egypt-sisi-idUSBREA4E07X20140515" target="_blank">terrorism</a>.”</p>
<p>In April 2012, Field Marshal al-Sisi made the headlines by defending “virginity tests” carried out on women detained and beaten by soldiers at an anti-Mubarak protest in Tahrir Square in March 2011.  Asked to respond, al-Sisi said that the “virginity tests” were used “to <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-19256730" target="_blank">protect</a> the girls from rape, and the soldiers and officers from accusation of rape.”</p>
<p>During the second part of a televised interview which aired on May 6, 2014, al-Sisi alluded to his attitude towards women, saying, “I personally love the Egyptian women.” He pointed out that as president “all the women in Egypt would be my <a href="http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2014/05/07/al-sisi-says-knew-mb-rule-march-2013/" target="_blank">daughters</a>.”  Stating that he would work to crack down on deep-rooted issues of sexual harassment and assault in Egypt, he encouraged the media to increase awareness of the issue and promote legislation.</p>
<p>Most Egyptians yearn for a strong leader following three years of turmoil that have shattered their economy, especially the tourism sector.  Two coups, endless demonstration, street violence, and the subsequent violent military crackdown, have made the soft spoken but stern former Field Marshal an attractive choice for a leader.  They see in Abdul Fattah al-Sisi the strongman needed to end the instability that has beset Egypt.  At the same time, Egyptian must also realize that they are trading what appeared as a brief moment of democratic will that toppled Mubarak’s dictatorship with another authoritarian leader.  Al- Sisi removed the failed authoritarian and menacing Islamist regime of President Morsi, but will he be able to provide for the needs ordinary Egyptians yearn for – everyday staples and freedom? Only time will tell.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.   </b></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-puder/who-is-the-future-egyptian-president/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Conservatives Win Elections and Lose the War</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ben-shapiro/why-conservatives-win-elections-and-lose-the-war/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=why-conservatives-win-elections-and-lose-the-war</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ben-shapiro/why-conservatives-win-elections-and-lose-the-war/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2014 04:42:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ben Shapiro]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political war]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=223541</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How the Right is sowing the seeds of its own demise. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/healthcare-human-right.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-223543" alt="Occupy Wall Street supporters march call" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/healthcare-human-right-450x332.jpg" width="315" height="232" /></a>On April 1, 2014, President Barack Obama triumphantly announced that 7.1 million Americans had selected a health insurance plan through Obamacare. In doing so, he nastily labeled his political opposition uncaring and unfeeling. &#8220;Why are folks working so hard for people not to have health insurance?&#8221; Obama asked. &#8220;Why are they so mad about the idea of people having health insurance?&#8221;</p>
<p>That night, Comedy Central&#8217;s Stephen Colbert sat behind his desk at &#8220;The Colbert Report,&#8221; playing his version of a conservative: vicious, mean and cruel. &#8220;I wish I could come to you with some good news, but the worst imaginable thing has happened: Millions of Americans are going to get health care.&#8221;</p>
<p>This is why conservatives lose. They lose because while they proclaim that Obama&#8217;s signature legislation fails on the merits, raising costs and lowering access to vital services, the left surges forth with a different message: Conservatives are rotten to the core.</p>
<p>This message doesn&#8217;t just emanate from politicians in Washington. Entertainers like Colbert parrot back White House talking points in the guise of mockery. For many young people who get their news from Colbert, the only conservatism they see comes out of the mouth of a hard-core leftist playing a conservative who doesn&#8217;t exist. There is no conservative sitting up nights wondering how to deprive Americans of health insurance. But many young people don&#8217;t know that. They simply assume that the person Colbert is parodying <i>must </i>exist — otherwise, his satire isn&#8217;t satire at all, but a political smear job, an ugly and stereotypical blackfacing of conservatives.</p>
<p>For Colbert, to be funny, one of two alternatives must be true: Either his repulsive character must be based on a core reality — conservatives are evil — or his audience must believe in that core unreality.</p>
<p>With the help of Obama and an entertainment industry dedicated full time to the defacing of conservatives&#8217; character, the latter has certainly become the case. Too many Americans now perceive conservatives as morally deficient. All it has cost is hundreds of millions of dollars and several decades of consistent attacks springing from Hollywood and the political world.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s why so many Americans now seem comfortable giving the government power to violate freedom of conscience for conservatives: Evil people don&#8217;t deserve freedom and therefore, can be deprived of it. People who consider themselves civil libertarians suddenly find their inner totalitarian when it comes to Christian-owned bakeries. That can only happen when those people become convinced that Christian-owned bakeries are fronts of hatred and darkness. And <i>that </i>can only happen when they are falsely maligned as such, over and over again.</p>
<p>Conservatives can win short-term political fights and lose the war for hearts and minds. And that&#8217;s precisely what has happened, thanks to the lack of moral clarity on the right. It&#8217;s not enough to be good on policy. Americans must think of you as good. By neglecting that deeper battle, conservatives sow the seeds of their own destruction — and the destruction of American freedoms, as well.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ben-shapiro/why-conservatives-win-elections-and-lose-the-war/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>79</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Witch-Hunt Against Wilders</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/numan/wilders-under-attack/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=wilders-under-attack</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/numan/wilders-under-attack/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2014 04:35:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[H. Numan]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Geert Wilders']]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hague]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[less]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Moroccans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[netherlands]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pvv]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=221911</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Left's vilification of a truth-telling Dutch politician escalates.   ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/unnamed1.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-221913" alt="unnamed" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/unnamed1.jpg" width="320" height="223" /></a>On March 19, 2014, local elections were held in the Netherlands. On the eve of the election, party leaders celebrated their victories (or losses, as it were, for most parties). During the festivities Dutch politician Geert Wilders appeared in the Hague, one of the two cities in which Wilders&#8217; party, the PVV (Party for Freedom), participated in this election. In a rousing speech before enthusiastic party supporters, Wilders asked the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGy-CYhZczo">audience</a> if they wanted a bit less local taxation and fewer Moroccans. The audience shouted, &#8220;Less! Less! Less!&#8221; This created a storm of protest from just about everyone in the country. Wilders&#8217; remark was taken out of context and is being used to vilify him once more.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The political climate in the Netherlands surrounding Wilders now resembles the demonization of Pym Fortuyn in the months leading up to his assassination almost twelve years ago. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Last Sunday the IKON and EO TV stations broadcast a special interreligious Dutch Reformed service denouncing Wilders. The theme was based on Kennedy’s famous &#8220;Ich bin ein Berliner&#8221; speech. The Sunday service theme was a copycat variation: &#8220;We are all Moroccans.&#8221; Dutch people present literally embraced Moroccans to show their support for this poor, vilified minority. People wore T-shirts with the text &#8220;<em>Wij zijn Marokkanen</em>!&#8221; (&#8220;We are Moroccans!&#8221;). </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The message of the fanfare was: </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">We abhor the outright racist remarks of Geert Wilders last Wednesday. We strive towards an all-inclusive society, in which people of all races, cultures, religions and sexual preferences live together in peace. We believe that God/Allah wants it to be that way.</i></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">All political parties left, right and center denounced Wilders and demanded his apology. Wilders, nonetheless, is </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.parool.nl/parool/nl/3587/POLITIEK-BINNENLAND/article/detail/3620830/2014/03/22/Wilders-geen-spijt-en-geen-excuses.dhtml">standing by</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> his words.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The VVD (conservative party) Prime Minister has joined the chorus of critics, which now includes all major parties. His party was the last to join.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The PvdA (Labor) party is going even further. They announced that no parliamentary motion presented by the PVV will be supported by the PvdA. No matter what, the PvdA say they will vote against any PVV measure. Once a motion fails, the PvdA will propose it again and this time support it as their own party motion.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The media on the left and center (Holland does not have a right media flank) published a tear-jerking article on Sunday about a poor 11-year-old Moroccan boy who was brought to tears when his classmates teased him by shouting the words “LESS! LESS! LESS!”</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/22419245/__Klasgenootjes_riepen__minder___.html">story</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> is from the <em>Telegraaf</em> newspaper, which is seen as a more conservative newspaper in the country. Normally an item like this would be replaced by newer items the same day. However it was still on the front page on long into Monday. Let’s call that a coincidence.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">In contrast, another </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/22416866/__15_jongeren_mishandelen_mannen__.html">news item</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> in which fifteen “lightly tinted” juveniles (the politically correct term for Moroccan hoodlums) entered a house, seriously mistreated the three inhabitants, ransacked the premises and got away before the police arrived on Friday does not warrant any attention anymore. If only because it would firmly underline the words of Wilders.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Two Muslim parliamentarians now say they want </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/22420187/___Scholen_moeten_in_gesprek_gaan___.html">schools</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to dedicate extra attention to Wilders’ alleged expression of racism. They offered to train teachers and set up education courses. (For a small fee, no doubt.)</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">PVV parliamentarians on various political levels are </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.apple.com/">walking out</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> in droves. This includes two members of the PVV faction in parliament, together with most members of the newly-elected city councils in the Hague and Almere.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">What Wilders said was taken out of context and was blown out of all proportions, simply to divert attention. He didn’t say anything he hadn’t said before, or what Labor politicians said a couple of years ago themselves. He probably didn’t realize that his words would be given so much attention. But since they were, Wilders has taken the opportunity to make a defiant stand on principles he has long championed.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">There is a very good reason for Wilders’ opponents to gin up this controversy and distract the Dutch public. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">In the recent Dutch elections, apart from local municipal parties and D66 (liberal-democrat party), all parties lost. Massively. Except for Wilders’ PVV, whose losses were quite limited.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Masked by the controversy surrounding Wilders’ comments is any discussion of these huge losses, particularly those suffered by PvdA, VVD and CDA (Christian Democrats). It’s being mentioned in the news, but only casually. Yes, the PvdA lost quite a bit. The VVD lost somewhat. CDA didn’t lose the elections, they “won” — or so they say.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">A landslide of political change in the Netherlands is being completely ignored, all because of Wilders’ single remark. The defeat was so embarrassing that a scapegoat was urgently needed. What better than to divert attention to something else?</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Meanwhile, there is not a word about the consequences that must attend such an enormous political rout. If a political party loses on the level of what the PvdA lost, heads roll. The PvdA leader in Amsterdam, Pieter Hilhorst, has already resigned. It is almost certain the leader of the PvdA on a national level, Diederik Samson, will have to resign as well. Rumors were already widely circulating before the elections.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">However, all of a sudden not a peep. Of the coalition’s 79 seats, 49 seats would have been lost, had this been national elections. (A majority requires 76 seats.) In theory, because these elections were local and not national, the coalition believes it doesn’t have to worry about a thing. National elections are at least two years away. They have the indirect support from some opposition parties to keep the Titanic afloat. By focusing all attention on Wilders again they hope nobody will notice that all other politicians are wearing no clothes.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">However, this political calculation may not be as sound as it may seem. Politicians may be leaving the PVV, but the electorate is not. 85% of present PVV voters will vote the same way again. They have full confidence in Wilders. And after all, it’s not the first time such an all-out attack has been made on the PVV leader. Every time he emerges stronger from it. Also, most people don’t like it very much if politicians change their opinions quicker than the weather. Or talk in vague, opaque terms. </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humphrey_Appleby">Sir Humphrey Appleby</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> was by far the funniest character in “Yes Minister”; in real life people don’t like politicians like him.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Wilders always looks for long-term solutions; he doesn’t go for short-term victories as all other politicians do. This is the second local election he basically ignored. The party doesn’t have enough qualified members to be able to govern effectively, so they prefer not to govern. The pragmatic maneuvering has seemed to have paid off politically. But now Wilders is finding, once again, that with a rising political star comes retribution.</span></p>
<p><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">H. Numan is the Dutch correspondent for the <a href="http://gatesofvienna.net">Gates of Vienna</a>.   </i></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/numan/wilders-under-attack/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>172</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>When Fighting Liberal Messiahs, Hit Hard or Go Home</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/when-fighting-liberal-messiahs-hit-hard-or-go-home/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=when-fighting-liberal-messiahs-hit-hard-or-go-home</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/when-fighting-liberal-messiahs-hit-hard-or-go-home/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Oct 2013 13:22:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Point]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill de Blasio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liberalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Bias]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=208869</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Milquetoasts do not win elections]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/deblasio-time2.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-208870" alt="deblasio time2" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/deblasio-time2-350x350.jpg" width="350" height="350" /></a></p>
<p>If anyone expected Joe Lhota to be able to play Giuliani, they were disappointed. Like so many Republicans, including Mitt Romney, Lhota, despite being down over 40 points, was too afraid to hit a man whom the media decided was &#8220;likable&#8221;.</p>
<p>And so Lhota is going to lose. Unless the welfare class and the unions licking their lips at being able to eat the city whole and spit out the crumbs on what&#8217;s left of Detroit somehow decide to stay home on election day, New York City will have a radical left-wing mayor.</p>
<p>And it&#8217;s Lhota&#8217;s fault.</p>
<p>Obviously Lhota is running against the media. A lot of Republicans are these days. And when you&#8217;re running against the media, you better either have an outsized personality that can shine through, which he doesn&#8217;t, or serious attack dog skills.</p>
<p>Lhota has a reputation for the latter, but it&#8217;s not obvious. The man who shows up at the debates is too afraid of being seen as a mean guy. Giuliani once upon a time had that worry. Then he got over it. And he won.</p>
<p>Milquetoasts do not win elections. Not unless the media spends all its time manufacturing a fake brand for them. Or unless their opponent forgets to take his medication and says something so unpardonable that even the media can&#8217;t cover up. And the media can cover up a lot.</p>
<p>Bill de Blasio was a political activist for a murderous Communist regime that burned churches and synagogues. And the media will make a federal case out of a Lhota sneeze.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s what Lhota is up against and he is only slowly coming to that realization, which, like too many Republicans, has only made him more timid.</p>
<p>If you&#8217;re going to take on a liberal messiah, then you either hit hard or go home. Hitting hard won&#8217;t always win the day. The media will hit even harder. That&#8217;s why this isn&#8217;t a game for the weak. You have to bring it 24/7. You have to make sure the nasty gibes don&#8217;t take you down or characterize you as a loser by fighting non-stop.</p>
<p>Too many Republicans still imagine that they can play by Lindsay rules as long as they share his liberal politics. They can, occasionally, until they go into an election that really matters. And then the media stops caring that you&#8217;re for gay rights, abortion and everything but budget cuts. And it dismisses you if it can or eats you alive, if it can&#8217;t.</p>
<p>Despite being down 40 points, Lhota was not prepared to fight hard enough. And it&#8217;s not just his loss. It&#8217;s New York&#8217;s loss. His boss pulled back the city from the brink. Bill de Blasio will toss it into the hole.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/when-fighting-liberal-messiahs-hit-hard-or-go-home/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Muslim Brotherhood’s False Appeal</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-muslim-brotherhoods-false-appeal/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-muslim-brotherhoods-false-appeal</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-muslim-brotherhoods-false-appeal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2013 04:22:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[al Qaeda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[egypt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[muslim brotherhood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-violence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=200263</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What if terrorist Islam and political Islam are the same thing?]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Muslim-Brotherhood_2013345c.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-200323" alt="Muslim-Brotherhood_2013345c" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Muslim-Brotherhood_2013345c.jpg" width="290" height="228" /></a>We spend a great deal of time talking about the Muslim Brotherhood’s networks, its agents of influence and the structural elements of its infrastructure. But it may be worth exploring a more basic question.</p>
<p>What is its appeal?</p>
<p>This isn’t an inquiry about the appeal of the Muslim Brotherhood and its varied front groups to the educated and wealthy Muslims who make up its key demographic.</p>
<p>The Brotherhood promises the Sunni Arab elites that they can stay on top while beating the West by making Islam into as compelling a method of national and international governance as the freedom and free trade that upended their feudal societies.  So it’s no great mystery why a Cal-Tech student from Egypt will join the MSA. It offers him a heady combination of community, power, revenge and destiny.</p>
<p>What is more interesting is the appeal of the Muslim Brotherhood, a reactionary Islamist terrorist organization with a history of Nazi collaboration that stands for theocracy, to the Western politicians who have come flocking to it as the last best hope for stability in the Middle East.</p>
<p>A glimmer of that false hope can be seen in the Washington Post editorial that Senator McCain and Senator Graham penned after a disastrous visit in which they failed to pressure the Egyptian authorities to free Muslim Brotherhood detainees.</p>
<p>Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, McCain and Graham warned ominously, “is a former member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood who was radicalized during the violent crackdowns and detentions of Brotherhood leaders by previous Egyptian regimes. “  And if the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t given a chance to take power, the two politicians implicitly conclude, a new generation of Al Qaeda will be born.</p>
<p>Every single Al Qaeda leader, including Bin Laden, had actually been a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Somehow Bin Laden turned to terror without the benefit of any Egyptian crackdown.</p>
<p>McCain and Graham’s thinking shows the logical flaw that allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to seduce the West. They focus on the “radicalization” of Ayman al-Zawahiri as a matter of means, not of ends.</p>
<p>The difference between Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, a difference that so many politicians have made their talking point in support for the Brotherhood, does not hinge on the nature of the society that both want to bring about, but on the tactics they use to bring that society about.</p>
<p>It’s not that there are no differences between them, but they are comparable to the ones between the Bolsheviks and the Trotskyites, rather than between the Labour Party and the Bolsheviks. The distinction is occasionally crucial to dogmatic insiders, but irrelevant to us in terms of the violence and warfare that we would inevitably face from such a regime in the long term.</p>
<p>As every leftist activist knows, moderation is a strategy.  Terrorism is also a strategy. Strategies can be revealing, but objectives are much more revealing.</p>
<p>The terrorism-or-democracy fallacy treats Islamists as “bad” if they blow up buildings in order to build a theocracy, but “good” if they compete in elections to build a theocracy. It prioritizes process over outcome and its logic suggests that we should have no objections to Hitler and Stalin if they had come to power as part of a pure democratic process. Or worse still, bet that democracy would moderate them.</p>
<p>Democracy and terrorism are treated as opposite poles. One leads to a stable, prosperous and free society and the other to ruin and perpetual war. But despite all the assertions that democracy is the only thing that can stabilize Egypt, democracy has already badly destabilized Egypt. Most Egyptians were safer and better off under Mubarak. That may be one reason so much of the country appears to have breathed a sigh of relief at the current state of affairs. The majority of Egyptians polled appear to show that democratically they are happy to be rid of democracy.</p>
<p>The lazy assumption that when the Muslim Brotherhood switched from the bomb to the ballot box, it did more than switch means, it also switched ends, doesn’t hold up. Not when examining the tactics of Islamists in power from Turkey to Tunisia to Egypt. Islamists are as violent in power as they are out of power. It isn’t disenfranchisement that radicalizes them. It’s their belief in Islamic rule that does.</p>
<p>Rather than trying to avoid the outcome that leads to an Islamist tyranny, men like McCain and Graham try to avoid leading the Islamists to violent tactics. Their goal is not to stop terrorists from forming regimes, but to dissuade them from using terrorist tactics to form those regimes.</p>
<p>But do McCain and Graham really think that Ayman al-Zawahiri would have been a great improvement as a Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt rather than as a leader of Al Qaeda? If so, they ought to honestly defend that point of view. Instead they warn us that if the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t allowed to take over Egypt by the ballot box, they’ll go on trying to take it over by the bomb.</p>
<p>Is a democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood really better than a violent Muslim Brotherhood opposition? Even if the goal is to shut down terrorism, a regime in one of the largest countries in the region that supports terrorism is far more of a threat than that same regime as a terrorist opposition.</p>
<p>Stability through appeasement led to pressure on Israel to create a Palestinian state because a state created through moderate means was bound to be moderate. After two decades of terrorism, there is no evidence that this has been the case. Nor is there any evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood had become moderate to the point of eschewing violence.</p>
<p>In Egypt, Morsi’s successful election through a flawed democratic process did not prevent him from attempting to seize absolute power anyway. It did not prevent him from using armies of thugs to rape, torture and terrorize his political opponents.</p>
<p>The Muslim Brotherhood’s emphasis on political Islam did not preclude terrorist Islam because like the political and military wings of a terrorist organization, political Islam and terrorism Islam are the same Islam.</p>
<p>Western leaders have seized on political Islam as the salvation of a civilized world reeling from attacks by terrorist Islam; but this sees terrorism only as an end, rather than as a means.</p>
<p>McCain and Graham, like most Western leaders, are unable to take the Islamist dreams of a revived Caliphate seriously. That is their undoing and ours. To them, the Brotherhood will become another political party and its Islamist agenda will mean little except a ban on liquor or a lower marriage age for little girls. They refuse to understand their enemies by contemplating the world of the present through the dirty glass of the Islamic lens.</p>
<p>What they fail to understand is that the Islamists don’t just seek to change a few laws; they want to overthrow the entire system, to sweep away the assumptions of one civilization and replace it with those of another.</p>
<p>Western politicians are too much creatures of the current system to contemplate the return of the world as it was a thousand years ago. They have imbibed the machinery of the clock and believe that history only marches forward, never backward. And the Muslim Brotherhood is proving them wrong.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-muslim-brotherhoods-false-appeal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>29</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Federal Takeover of Elections?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/a-federal-takeover-of-elections/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=a-federal-takeover-of-elections</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/a-federal-takeover-of-elections/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2013 04:54:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[executive order]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[takeover]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=188692</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why critics say a new executive power-grab is in the offing. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/vote.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-188725" alt="vote" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/vote-450x299.jpg" width="270" height="179" /></a>On March 28, President Obama issued <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/03/28/executive-order-establishment-presidential-commission-election-administr">Executive Order 13639</a>, establishing a Presidential Commission on Election Administration &#8220;in order to promote the efficient administration of Federal elections and to improve the experience of all voters.&#8221; The ostensible premise behind this effort is the idea that some voters were forced to wait too long in line to cast their ballots. Yet a growing number of critics see something entirely different: they see this as an attempt to <a href="http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/15007-does-obama-s-election-commission-signal-federal-takeover-of-elections">initiate</a> a federal takeover of elections.</p>
<p>Former Justice Department official J. Christian Adams characterizes the president&#8217;s effort as a &#8220;federal solution in search of a problem,&#8221; which as foreshadowed in Obama&#8217;s State of the Union address. He spoke of a woman named <a href="http://floppingaces.net/2013/02/13/desiline-victor-sorry-to-burst-the-happy-bubble-but/">Desiline Victor,</a> a 102-year-old Florida resident forced to show up twice on October 28, the first day of early voting, due to the long lines she encountered. “When she arrived at her polling place, she was told the wait to vote might be six hours,” Obama said, “And as time ticked by, her concern was not with her tired body or aching feet, but whether folks like her would get to have their say.”</p>
<p>Like many of Obama&#8217;s efforts to tug at the emotional heartstrings of Americans, the devil is in the details. In general, the lines on the first day of early voting are usually much longer than those encountered on Election Day. This was confirmed by an MIT study that revealed the average wait for voting on Election Day was seven minutes shorter than the wait on other days. Moreover, Florida is somewhat notorious for loading up ballots with lengthy referendums that voters ought to review before they show up to the polls, but don&#8217;t in many cases. Adams also points out that lengthy waits to vote &#8220;occur frequently in large cities where elections are administered by Democrats.&#8221;</p>
<p>On his website, he gets to the crux of the issue. &#8220;The federal government is forever searching for more ways to snatch power from the states; that’s the nature of the beast,&#8221; he explains. &#8220;No Republicans should acquiesce to another federal power grab over state elections&#8211; dispersing power over elections means that no one entity, or person, can easily manipulate the process. The Founders knew that decentralized control over the process helps preserve individual liberty.&#8221;</p>
<p>Whether manipulating the process is part of the agenda remains to be seen. The Board&#8217;s two chairmen, election lawyers Robert Bauer and Ben Ginsberg, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/15/us/politics/opposing-election-lawyers-to-lead-obama-voting-panel.html?_r=0">represented</a> Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, respectively, during the 2012 election. Obama contends that Ginsberg, a Republican, would give the Board credibility and ensure its bipartisan nature. The president will also <a href="http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/03/28/obama-executive-order-creates-commission-on-election-administration/">name</a> the seven other members of the Board. According to the order, they will be people with &#8220;knowledge about or experience in the administration of State or local elections, as well as representatives of successful customer service-oriented businesses, and any other individuals with knowledge or experience.&#8221;</p>
<p>Beginning with its first meeting, the Board will have six months to submit recommendations to the president. One month after that report is submitted, the Board will disband.</p>
<p>Adams remains wary, noting that the Justice Department&#8217;s &#8220;controversy-plagued Civil Rights Division&#8221; has provided &#8220;government-funded cover&#8221; to leftist activists who have called for expansive federal mandates to &#8220;fix a problem that is not widespread.&#8221; “If the Democrats name wild-eyed activists to the commission, we’ll know what the commission is really all about,&#8221; warns Adams.</p>
<p>It may not take that long. Democrats have <a href="http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=2049:february-15-2013-washington-post-obamas-proposed-voting-commission-under-partisan-fire-from-both-sides&amp;catid=64:press-articles-of-interest&amp;Itemid=62">introduced</a> several bills in Congress that would effectively usurp state election law. Provisions include requiring states to set up a 15-day early voting period, the imposition of a one-hour limit on the time voters must wait to cast their ballot, a requirement allowing online registration, and one permitting convicted criminals to vote after they have completed their sentences.</p>
<p>The glaring omission? Requiring or allowing states to require photo ID for voting.</p>
<p>Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) <a href="http://cnsnews.com/news/article/republican-senators-question-obama-s-call-national-voting-commission-0">addressed</a> that ideologically inspired discrepancy. &#8220;[Obama's] Justice Department tragically has been the most partisan Justice Department this country has seen. They have repeatedly fought common sense voter integrity policies like voter ID that serve, as the U.S. Supreme Court has said, to protect and ensure the integrity of our democratic system,&#8221; he told CNS News.</p>
<p>There is little question that Cruz is correct. Prior to the 2012 election, the DOJ <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/26/politics/house-voter-id-laws">sued</a> Pennsylvania, Texas and South Carolina to prevent them from imposing photo ID requirements for voting. The latter two states were sued under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, that requires states with a history of racial discrimination to &#8220;pre-clear&#8221; any changes to their procedures with the DOJ. A <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/in-supreme-court-debate-on-voting-rights-act-a-dubious-use-of-statistics/">suit</a> filed by Shelby County, Alabama, challenging the validity of Section  is currently before U.S. Supreme Court. A ruling is expected in late June.</p>
<p>Moreover, while both Obama and Holder remain focused on minority &#8220;disenfranchisement,&#8221; they have blithely ignored the 2009 Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act that required voter service facilities to be set up on military bases to provide troops with access to voter registration and absentee ballot forms. According to a Defense Department report <a href="http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/09/07/dod-report-finds-half-of-u-s-military-bases-lack-required-voter-assistance-offices/">released</a> two months before the 2012 election, only 114 of the 229 installation voting assistance offices (IVAOs) were operational.</p>
<p>That Obama and the DOJ are more concerned with <i>possible </i>voter disenfranchisement than <i>actual</i> disenfranchisement speaks volumes.</p>
<p>Thus, it is no surprise that the DOJ <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/06/us-usa-politics-southcarolina-monitors-idUSBRE9450RO20130506">announced</a> it would monitor South Carolina&#8217;s special election that took place yesterday. It was initiated to fill the spot left by former Rep. Tim Scott, who was appointed by Governor Nikki Haley to replace Senator Jim DeMint, who resigned to head the Heritage Foundation. The race pitted scandal-scarred former Republican Governor Mark Sanford against Democratic newcomer Elizabeth Colbert Busch. The DOJ gave no reason for the monitoring, but the vote will take place under South Carolina&#8217;s new law requiring photo ID to vote. The disenfranchisement theme was highlighted in a campaign ad <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/black-voters-are-key-to-a-colbert-busch-win-in-south-carolina-20130428">released</a> by Busch. “Somebody doesn’t want African Americans to vote, and it doesn’t take Shaft to figure out who,” says a narrator while Isaac Hayes’ soundtrack from <i>Shaft </i>plays in the background. “Tuesday, May 7th, is your chance to show them they can’t get away with it.”</p>
<p>Moreover, given Holder&#8217;s speech before Al Sharpton&#8217;s National Action Network in April, it is likely that voter disenfranchisement remains his primary concern. He vowed to aggressively enforce federal voting rights laws&#8211;no matter how Supreme Court rules on Section 5. “As we await the court&#8217;s decision, I want to assure you that no matter the outcome, the Department of Justice will remain committed to the aggressive and appropriate enforcement of all voting and civil rights protections, including every part of the Voting Rights Act,&#8221; he promised.</p>
<p>Thus, no matter what the administration claims about bipartisanship, it is impossible to ignore the context within which this Commission has been created. Adams reminds Americans that since the Motor Voter law passed in 1993, the scope of where people can now register to vote has expanded to &#8220;food stamp offices, welfare offices and even heroin addiction treatment facilities&#8221; even as the part of the same law requiring voter rolls to be purged of ineligible voters &#8220;has gathered dust over the last two decades.&#8221;</p>
<p>The ideological divide is clear. For Democrats, voter turnout, irrespective of procedural integrity, is their first priority. For Republicans, the integrity of the process itself, which they consider best protected by photo ID, is paramount. Given the ideological bent of the current administration, there is little question that any attempt to federalize the election process would prioritize voter turnout, even as the effort to investigate and prosecute voter fraud would likely be marginalized.</p>
<p>Despite this reality, the left should be equally wary of allowing the federal government to control elections. No political party retains control of Washington, D.C. in perpetuity, and to use a familiar adage, &#8220;what goes around comes around.&#8221; Furthermore, Americans are far better served by 50 separate entities, aka the states, vying to improve voting procedures on their own. Individual states are far more familiar with the details and issues related to voting than any one-size-fits-all bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. could ever be.</p>
<p>Using the phony crisis of long lines as the impetus to create a Presidential Commission on Election Administration smacks of this administration&#8217;s &#8220;never let a crisis go to waste&#8221; mentality, even as the genuine crisis of disenfranchising those who put their lives on the line for the nation is calculatingly ignored. In short, tyranny requires centralized control. Freedom does not.</p>
<p>Seventy-four percent of Americans <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/14/74-of-americans-support-voter-id-laws">support</a> photo ID as a prerequisite to voting. Under the &#8220;Mission&#8221; section of this executive order, there are 11 items the president considers vital to improving the election process. Photo ID isn&#8217;t one of them.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/a-federal-takeover-of-elections/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>23</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>In Defense of Rove</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/in-defense-of-rove/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=in-defense-of-rove</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/in-defense-of-rove/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2013 04:58:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservative Victory Project]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[crossroads]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rove]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=176907</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The wisdom of avoiding the needless surrender of power.  ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/in-defense-of-rove/rove-2/" rel="attachment wp-att-176914"><img class="size-full wp-image-176914 alignleft" title="rove" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/rove.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="300" /></a>Intense criticism is mounting <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/gop-civil-war-karl-rove-group-conservative-victory/story?id=18424932">against Karl Rove</a> over his launch of the “Conservative Victory Project,” a new American Crossroads initiative that seeks to vet GOP Senate candidates while squeezing out unelectable political prospects. Conservative critics of Rove see his new venture as an “incumbent protection program” and an assault on the Tea Party. But the accusations miss their mark. It is difficult to deny the disasters that cost conservatives precious political power in the last two elections – disasters that could have been easily prevented if there had been a system set up for the careful scrutiny of candidates. Surely, the conservative movement would better be served by a more effective filtering out of unelectable candidates through a project like Rove has designed.</p>
<p>“There is a broad concern about having blown a significant number of races because the wrong candidates were selected,” says Steven J. Law, the president of <a href="http://www.americancrossroads.org/about/">American Crossroads</a>, the conservative organization responsible for the creation of the Project. “We don’t view ourselves as being in the incumbent protection business, but we want to pick the most conservative candidate who can win.”</p>
<p>Jonathan Collegio, communications director of American Crossroads, further <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/american-crossroads-ashley-judd-join-nfl-expect-knocks-120517665.html">illuminates </a>the rationale behind the project:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Somewhere between four to seven U.S. Senate seats were lost over the last two election cycles, not because of the messages that the Republican party had, but because of the messengers, the lack of candidate discipline, as well as a lack of ability to raise sufficient money to compete.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Some of those messengers were indeed very much off the charts politically. Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin’s ludicrous comment about &#8220;legitimate rape&#8221; more than likely cost Republicans a Senate seat <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Senate/2012/1107/Claire-McCaskill-most-endangered-Democrat-wins-Missouri-Senate-race-video">retained </a>by the extremely vulnerable incumbent Claire McCaskill. McCaskill was widely predicted to lose before Akin’s blunder. Richard E. Mourdock, who <a href="http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-11-07/news/chi-mourdock-loses-indiana-senate-race-20121107_1_richard-mourdock-lugar-republicans-indiana-senate">ousted </a>Indiana Republican incumbent Richard E. Lugar in the primary, was defeated by Rep. Joe Donnelly for a seat long-held by the GOP. His widely publicized statement that &#8220;even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that is something that God intended to happen&#8221; was a decisive factor.</p>
<p>The 2010 election saw similar defeats of other dubious candidates, such as the highly grating <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/reid-wins-nevada_514609.html">loss </a>by Sharron Angle to a very vulnerable Harry Reid in Nevada, and Ken Buck, who <a href="http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/laura-chapin/2010/11/05/ken-bucks-abortion-stance-cost-him-the-senate-seat">lost </a>a close race to Michael Bennet in Colorado, very likely due to his position that abortion should be prohibited even in cases of rape or incest. In the cases of Bennet, Akin and Mourdock, these candidates do not even represent the popular Republican Party view of allowing abortion exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother. All it takes is one question from one reporter on their extreme position, and the race is as good as lost. How many more times will conservatives permit this scene to play itself out?</p>
<p>Perhaps the most glaring example of the type of election forfeiture Rove and Crossroads seek to avoid with their new project comes to us from Christine O&#8217;Donnell, who ousted Rep. Michael Castle in the primary, only to be defeated by Christopher Coons in the 2010 election in <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/christine-odonnell-loses-delaware-senate-race-christopher-coons/story?id=12036730">Delaware</a>. O&#8217;Donnell represented the epitome of an undesirable candidate. She had held no elective office or had any experience in government <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/14/hours-polls-close-gloves-come-delaware/">prior </a>to running for the Senate, and a veritable <a href="http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/77887/the-collected-aphorisms-christine-odonnell">collection </a>of off-the-wall comments, as well as a <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Business/checkered-financial-past-dogs-tea-partys-christine-odonnell/story?id=11646637">series </a>of business problems, ranging from unpaid debts and taxes, to IRS liens and misused campaign funds, made her an easily beatable candidate. Coons <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/democrat-chris-coons-easily-wins-delaware-senate-race-57-vote-trounces-christine-o-donnell-article-1.451817">trounced </a>O&#8217;Donnell in the election, winning by a margin of 17 points. By contrast, an exit poll taken following the vote <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/02/exit-polls-the-surprise-in-delaware/">showed </a>Coons would have beaten Castle by a single point. Considering that poll was taken after Coons’ victory, it is quite possible Castle could have overcome such a slender margin during a sustained campaign. Instead, a man with a serious prior flirtation with <a href="http://spectator.org/blog/2010/09/22/chris-coons-i-studied-under-a">Marxism</a> was sent to the Senate.</p>
<p>In an <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2013/02/06/karl-rove-defends-new-group-sending-shockwaves-through-gop">interview </a>with Fox News&#8217; Sean Hannity, Rove attempted to defuse criticism coming from conservative circles. The foremost accusation is that Rove is attempting to form an incumbent protection movement aimed at protecting establishment GOP candidates from &#8220;upstart&#8221; Tea Party candidates and their &#8220;over-the-top&#8221; conservatism. &#8220;This is not to protect incumbent Republicans,&#8221; explained Rove. He continued:</p>
<blockquote><p>“It is to get in races where it is important to have a winning candidate. It is to try and find the most conservative candidate who can win the so-called Buckley rule. Our job is not to protect incumbents, it is to win races by stopping the practice of giving away some of the seats like we did in Missouri and Indiana this past year, and that may mean telling the incumbent Republican that if he is going be in the race, he shouldn&#8217;t expect any funds from Crossroads in the general election.”</p></blockquote>
<p>The claim that Rove is “at war” with conservative grassroots is similarly hyperbolic and is disproved by the tens of millions of dollars that Crossroads has given to Tea Party candidates, even against the organization’s better judgment. &#8220;Crossroads is second to none in our support of Tea Party candidates,&#8221; Rove affirmed:</p>
<blockquote><p>“In 2010 and &#8217;12, we spent over $30 million for Senate candidates who were Tea Party candidates. We spent almost $20 million for House candidates who were Tea Party candidates &#8230; We spent $2.9 million for Marco Rubio, more than any other group. We spent $2.7 million for Ron Paul. We spent $5.1 million for Sharron Angle in Nevada. We spent $8 million in Colorado for Ken Buck. We spent $1.4 million in Pennsylvania for Pat Toomey, the former president of Club for Growth. We spent more money on his behalf than the group that he used to head. And then in 2012 we spent $5.9 million in Indiana for Murdock and $3.3 million in Missouri. We ran ads up until the point where Akin made his stupid comment.”</p></blockquote>
<p>As Rove notes, the Tea Party has certainly brought the GOP some good candidates, such as Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, which Crossroads has supported. But it has also supported terrible candidates, which the entire conservative movement, including the so-called “establishment,” has no choice but to waste millions of dollars on in vain. Like the Republican Party itself, the Tea Party movement is not immune to attracting unseemly characters and supporting those who do damage to the conservative cause. The influential Tea Party-aligned group FreedomWorks, for instance, suffered an embarrassing leadership fallout over a book royalty dispute. Veteran Republican politico and former chairman Dick Armey resigned from the organization after he and other staffers alleged group president Matt Kibbe was <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/dick-armey-freedomworks-president-clashed-over-book-deal-84599.html">exploiting</a> FreedomWorks to enrich himself through a book produced with organizational resources. As one internal source told the <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/05/why-dick-armey-resigned-from-his-tea-party-organization/">Daily Caller</a>, “There is a feeling by a lot of folks that FreedomWorks is shifting over to become a promotion vehicle for Matt Kibbe more than an organization that focuses on public policy and elections and being a service center to the grassroots.”</p>
<p>The Conservative Victory Project will maintain its own identity, operating as a super-PAC, independent of both American Crossroads and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. This autonomy, along with the intention of disclosing the names of donors, is considered critical. The inevitable showdowns between competing Republicans is likely to make some donors squeamish about supporting intra-party battles that could eventually benefit Democrats, much like the Republican presidential primaries gave the Obama campaign plenty of ammunition to use against eventual nominee Mitt Romney.</p>
<p>One candidate for the 2014 races reportedly being targeted by Rove&#8217;s group is Rep. Steve King (R-IA), who is considering a run for the Senate seat in Iowa currently held by retiring Democrat Tom Harkin. Efforts will be made to see that he doesn&#8217;t get the nomination, due to his outspoken and incendiary <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/20/iowa-could-be-key-2014-test-for-senate-gop-campaign-arm/">comments </a>that would likely alienate a majority of the electorate: King contended that terrorists would be “dancing in the streets” if President Obama won the 2008 election, unnecessarily denigrated illegal immigrants as “dogs,” and called former Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-WI) “a great American hero.” Other Senate races where provocative would-be candidates are seen as potential general election liabilities include Louisiana, Alaska and Georgia.</p>
<p>A more rigorous vetting process for such loose-cannon candidates will likely improve electoral outcomes for the conservative movement. In 2010, for example, prompted by nationwide dissatisfaction with two years of complete Democratic control, the Senate, just like the House, was ripe for the taking by Republicans. In the end, Democrats <a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html">maintained </a>a 51-47 margin (with 2 independents). Thus, the three very winnable Senate seats lost by Angle, Buck and O&#8217;Donnell cost the GOP control of that chamber. After that, the Democratically-controlled Senate, led by Harry Reid, enabled Barack Obama to keep his profligate and irresponsible spending under wraps by refusing to pass a budget for more than three years. Had Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, they would have very likely forced the president to veto responsible budgets which, in turn, might have led to a different result in the 2012 presidential election. Moreover, as mad as conservative groups may be, Jonathan Collegio reminds them that losing control of the Senate &#8220;made it impossible to stop Obama’s fiscal cliff tax hikes last month.&#8221;</p>
<p>In 2014, Senate races will see Democrats defending 21 seats, compared to only 14 for Republicans, giving them a similar advantage to the 23-10 one they held in the 2012 election. Democrats gained two seats, courtesy of Mourdock and Aken, but 2014 is fraught with far more peril for their party. Barack Obama isn&#8217;t on the ballot, meaning voters can only express dissatisfaction with his policies by taking it out on other Democrats. Off-year elections also tend to attract voters who are paying closer attention than the so-called &#8220;low information voters.&#8221; Thus, the excesses of dubious candidates with hard-line positions that thrill primary voters, while they alienate the general electorate, are likely to be magnified.</p>
<p>Conservatives of all strips were burned by the outcome of the 2012 election and are understandably searching for the cause of their electoral misfortune. But they must look honestly at the factors that produced crucial losses for the cause and ultimately allowed the radical agenda of the Obama administration to continue damaging the country. The Conservative Victory Project is a legitimate attempt to prevent unforced errors in the candidate vetting process and needlessly giving up political power to the opposition. The conservative movement is not advanced by fomenting its own division and fighting with each other instead of fighting the enemy.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/in-defense-of-rove/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>173</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Path to Saving the Republic: Just Say &#8216;No&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/michael-finch/the-path-to-saving-the-republic-just-say-no/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-path-to-saving-the-republic-just-say-no</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/michael-finch/the-path-to-saving-the-republic-just-say-no/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Feb 2013 02:04:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Finch]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[States]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=175975</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The first salvos have already been fired in the battle to save America.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/michael-finch/the-path-to-saving-the-republic-just-say-no/f_we_the_people12-2/" rel="attachment wp-att-175978"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-175978" title="f_we_the_people12" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/f_we_the_people121.gif" alt="" width="255" height="181" /></a><em>The following article was originally published by <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/the_path_to_saving_the_republic_just_say_no.html">American Thinker</a>.</em></p>
<p>Our nation is in crisis. The Obama administration is centralizing power at a level unmatched in American history with grave consequences for our future liberty and freedom. Of that there is not much debate among conservatives. Conservatives, however, are always waiting for the next Ronald Reagan, wondering if Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan or someone will win in 2016 and save the country from Obama. This is a fool&#8217;s errand. Rubio and Ryan are fine men, good leaders and very important for our cause. But they can&#8217;t save our Republic. There is no &#8220;one&#8221; and we need to stop looking to the next federal election to solve our problems.</p>
<p>So, is there a way to restore the Republic? There is good news; the first salvos have already been fired in the battle to save America. And no, they weren&#8217;t fired from anywhere in Washington D.C., from members of Congress or from Republican Party headquarters.</p>
<p>The shots being fired, the first movements in a war to save our republican form of government are coming from the most unheralded of places. What is happening in Topeka, Austin, Ogden, Billings, Richmond and many other locales is just the beginning of a movement that will sweep this nation in the next four years. The people, in the form of their respective States and their State legislatures, are learning and relearning the lessons that Jefferson and Madison taught us over 200 years ago.</p>
<p>The lesson resides in one word: Just say &#8220;No.&#8221;</p>
<p>When the Democratic Governor of Montana claims that any Federal government ban on the right to bear arms will not take hold in his State or when the Republican Governor of Texas says that there are sections of the Obamacare law that will not hit the ground in his State, they are not espousing a new, radical and revolutionary theory of American self-governance. They are speaking from an over 200 year history that traces its roots back to the Founding of our great nation and codified by the pens of none other than Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. They are the kernels of the coming restoration of America.</p>
<p>The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 were a protest against the Alien and Sedition Acts. It is hard to find a scholar alive that will find the Acts constitutional. In these resolutions, the authors, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, argued that &#8220;the states&#8221; have the right to interpret the Constitution and can declare federal laws unconstitutional when the federal government exceeds its delegated powers. Thus, we have the theories of nullification and interposition. Of this, there is little historical debate, but the rest has been left to the time of history, to Court challenges, the Civil War, and varying interpretations of what was meant, what was the impact and relevance of these theories espoused in 1798.</p>
<p>The obstacles come not just from the Left on this issue. The vast majority of constitutional scholars, on the left and right, are dead set opposed to the theory of nullification. The scholars say that not only is the theory wrong, dead and long since decided, but even a discussion of the theory is verboten. Raise the issue and you are guaranteed of one thing: you will be called some version of a &#8220;pro-slavery, neo-confederate, Jim Crow loving racist.&#8221; And that is if they are feeling charitable. The bottom line for legal scholars is that the debate over nullification ended in 1865.</p>
<p>The Civil War settled one thing for certain; that the attempt on the part of Southern States to secede from the rest of the United States failed. Everything that flowed from that, the freeing of the slaves, reconstruction and the future of the South, the centralization of power in the Federal Government etc., were consequences of the war. Why is that important in this debate? Because the theory of nullification, the discussion of the theory, the ideas of Jefferson and Madison, again, did not die at Appomattox, Virginia in 1865. If you are going to be honest, the theory of secession didn&#8217;t die in 1865 either, just the attempt at it did. Remember, secession was never put on trial to be decided in a constitutional court.</p>
<p>Further, to answer the critics, the theory of nullification was not created or used in defense of slavery; in fact it had been used by the anti-slavery cause. The great Nullification debate of 1832 in South Carolina was over the issue of tariffs. The most well-known Supreme Court case on the issue of nullification was <em>Ableman v. Booth</em>, the Wisconsin case that was notable for the State of Wisconsin&#8217;s resistance to the decision make in <em>Dred Scott</em>, the <em>pro</em>-slavery Supreme Court case of 1857. We are not arguing the legitimacy here, the Carolinians certainly seemed to overstep in saying that the passage of a tariff act violates the Constitution. But it is critical to restate this, nullification was not about slavery.</p>
<p>Granted, the legal arguments against nullification are long; the Supreme Court has repeatedly come down against the theory in numerous cases. Kentucky and Virginia were alone in their resolutions, no other States have ever signed up so explicitly as those two. Recent history, scholars, politicians and parties are all stacked against this theory.</p>
<p>But our history has often been moved by the people, not solely by scholars, political parties and their leaders. The purpose here is to simply open the debate. If one feels that our nation is facing a critical crossroads, that our very liberty is threatened and under attack, then don&#8217;t we owe ourselves to look at ideas from our Founders?</p>
<p>The historical interpretation of the American Founding has gone down two tracks. The Left, of course, couldn&#8217;t care less about the Founders; the Constitution is a dead letter that needs to be scrapped and made anew. This new &#8220;living&#8221; Constitution gives us one assurance; that we are being led down a path of tyranny and oppression. The American experiment is over.</p>
<p>But from the Right, when we speak of the Constitution and the Founding, we trap ourselves in a box. We won&#8217;t allow discussion of the theories behind the Constitution, we no longer listen to the fears that many had in the enacting of our Constitution and therefore the safeguards that were put in place. Lost in history are other theories, such as those espoused in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions that may offer a way to fight the growing federal unconstitutional tyranny that is taking shape.</p>
<p>It is ironic, but we, and rightly so, call out the Left for its manner of shutting out debate through name calling. You raise an issue and you are a bigot, racist, homophobe, Islamophobe, you name it. But the Right, in discussing this issue does the same, hence the ridiculous &#8220;neo-confederate&#8221; charge over the issue of nullification. With all due respect to the great legal scholars on the right today, I won&#8217;t turn a deaf ear to the words and writings of Jefferson and Madison. Not under our present conditions.</p>
<p>Consider this hypothetical: what if five years for now, we are in either a third term of Obama (don&#8217;t discount it) or the first term of say, Hillary. Scalia and Thomas are long gone from the Court; we are dealing with seven Sotomayors against two of our holdouts. A case comes before the Court on the 2<sup>nd</sup>Amendment. The Court decides that the Amendment pertains, not to an individual right, but only to state regulated militias, and not even states in our federal sense, but <em>the</em> State, the national government. What do we do?</p>
<p>The law is clearly unconstitutional, no matter what the Court says. Do we have a redress? Do we take the streets and revolt? Maybe eventually, but our founding fathers gave us another way. It is not the clearest way, not every Founder believed in it, the history is sketchy. Scholars are lined against it. But there can be no doubt what Thomas Jefferson and James Madison meant when they penned the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. The States, therein the people, can, and must, say <em>one</em> word to the Federal government in this, and other, unconstitutional instances:</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/michael-finch/the-path-to-saving-the-republic-just-say-no/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>57</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New York Times Spins Israeli Elections</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ari-lieberman/new-york-times-spins-israeli-elections/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=new-york-times-spins-israeli-elections</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ari-lieberman/new-york-times-spins-israeli-elections/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2013 04:20:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ari Lieberman]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Netanyahu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=175145</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why the mood of the Israeli electorate has clearly shifted to the right. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/ari-lieberman/new-york-times-spins-israeli-elections/times1-2/" rel="attachment wp-att-175200"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-175200" title="times1" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/times1.jpg" alt="" width="239" height="167" /></a>It is now beyond dispute that when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the <em>New York Times</em> is not interested in the facts or the truth, but is rather invested in propagating fiction bordering on the absurd. The <em>Times’</em> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/24/opinion/israels-election.html?partner=rssnyt&amp;emc=rss&amp;_r=0">January 24 screed</a> on the results of the recently concluded Israeli elections leaves no room for doubt on the veracity of the above-stated truism.</p>
<p>It begins with a quote lifted from the radical leftist Israeli daily <em>Ha’aretz</em>, a paper in near bankruptcy for lack of readership, which exudes a sort of giddiness over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s party’s loss of parliamentary seats. It then launches into its usual one-sided “blame the Jews” narrative for the stalled “peace talks,” and coddles “Palestinians who rejected violence and recognized Israel’s right to exist as part of the 1993 Oslo Accords.” I’ll get to these and other fictions featured in the editorial momentarily but there’s something worth noting from the get-go.</p>
<p>In a region plagued by sectarian violence and internecine warfare, where change is effectuated through the barrel of an AK-47 (and in the age of Obama, an M-16) and xenophobic Islamo-fascism is the norm rather than the fringe, Israel stands out as a beacon of democracy and a shining example of the democratic process at its finest. Elections came off without a hitch. No protests. No guns. No violence of any sort was recorded. That is the norm for Israel. Indeed, Freedom House recently conducted a <a href="http://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FIW%202013%20Booklet%20-%20for%20Web.pdf">study</a> concluding that Israel was the only truly free country in the entire region. Islamist Turkey, under the thuggish Erdogan, was rated only “partly free.”</p>
<p>One would think that the <em>New York Times</em>, a paper that supposedly prides itself on liberal and progressive values, would devote at least one sentence highlighting the stark contrasts between Israeli democracy and an Islamist Arab world in the throes of medieval backwardness.  But that would be asking too much from a paper dedicated to venomous defamation of Israel while singing the praises of the Palestinian <a href="http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/143752#.UQKiix3WLTA">Holocaust denier</a> Mahmoud Abbas and Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed “Jews-Are-Bloodsuckers” Morsi.</p>
<p>Instead, the editorial boys at the <em>New York Times</em> treat us to a flawed analysis and the usual litany of complaints against Israel and its Prime Minister. Israel’s electoral outcome, far from being a rejection of Netanyahu’s foreign policies as the <em>Times</em> would have us believe, actually served to validate them. Israeli voters shifted their allegiance further to the right evidenced by the ascendancy of Naftali Bennett’s Bayit Yehudi party, which is currently Israel’s fourth largest. Netanyahu will almost certainly include Bennett’s party in his next coalition as the two share similar ideologies.</p>
<p>Moreover, the enigmatic Yair Lapid, whose Yesh Atid party garnered an astonishing 19 seats, has taken great pains to distance himself from the left, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6tg7BlsZj8">correcting</a> reporters who erroneously labeled him as such. Lapid has already signaled his intention to join a coalition led by Netanyahu, rejecting outright calls from the leftist Labor party to form a blocking opposition. By contrast, Israel’s traditional leftist bloc (Labor, Hatnua and Meretz) garnered a paltry 27 seats, less than half required for a governing coalition, representing a complete and near-total rejection of the left by the Israeli electorate.</p>
<p>Aside from a skewed analysis that erroneously attempts to portray the election results as the left’s fantasy, the <em>New York Times</em> couldn’t resist the temptation to engage in the usual blame game. Of course, in the parallel universe of the <em>New York Times</em>, the Israelis are to blame for stalled peace talks while the so-called Palestinians are blameless.</p>
<p>The <em>Times</em> notes quite comically that the Israeli right “insults Palestinians who rejected violence and recognized Israel’s right to exist as part of the 1993 Oslo Accords.” It’s difficult to say, because the <em>Times</em> is ambiguous (perhaps deliberately), which Palestinians “rejected violence,” but presumably the paper is referring to Yasser Arafat because, after all, he was the signatory who stamped his approval for the Oslo Accords and shook hands with Yitzhak Rabin on the White House lawn. What the <em>Times</em>, however, fails to note is that it was Arafat who unleashed his gangsters and launched <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6I5fCCp4x4">pre-meditated</a> murder after he rejected then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s generous offer and territorial concessions at Camp David in 2000.</p>
<p>The <em>Times</em> also fails to note that Israelis are rightfully reserved and suspicious when it comes to Arab promises of peace, love and acceptance and this is especially true when their so-called peace partners refer to them as the, “<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3NCiaozL0k">descendants of apes and pigs</a>” and “<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3NCiaozL0k">bloodsuckers</a>,” among <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCopdzv29WY">other aspersions</a>.</p>
<p>The editorial concludes with a suggestion for Obama to visit Israel and explain, “to the Israeli people how any peace plan will enhance their security.” Israelis have been down that road before and it resulted in the unleashing of a wave of terror not experienced in Israel’s history. Israelis are astutely aware of what’s best for their security and their electoral outcome, which resulted in a strong center-right bloc, clearly demonstrates which path they wish to take. Obama is more than welcome to visit Israel (something he failed to do during his infamous 2009 Arab apology tour) but Israelis are in no mood for sanctimonious, patronizing “we know what’s good for you” lectures from Obama or the <em>New York Times</em>.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ari-lieberman/new-york-times-spins-israeli-elections/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hagel, Obama and the Israeli Elections</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/caroline-glick/hagel-obama-and-the-israeli-elections/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=hagel-obama-and-the-israeli-elections</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/caroline-glick/hagel-obama-and-the-israeli-elections/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2012 04:54:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Caroline Glick]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defense secretary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hagel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=171114</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If Obama backs down on Hagel's elevation to Defense Secretary, we have learned an important lesson.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/caroline-glick/hagel-obama-and-the-israeli-elections/hagel-2/" rel="attachment wp-att-171118"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-171118" title="hagel" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/hagel1.jpg" alt="" width="259" height="320" /></a>The National Journal recently reported that Obama is reconsidering his decision to appoint Chuck Hagel Secretary of Defense. As I wrote in my previous post, there is no chance that Obama will appoint a supporter of a strong Israel to any senior foreign policy post because he wouldn&#8217;t appoint someone who doesn&#8217;t share his basic animosity towards Israel. But in Hagel, he chose someone even more outspoken in his animus towards the Jewish state than Obama.</p>
<p>Hagel&#8217;s looming appointment provoked angry responses from many leading Jewish voices in the US. Whether this opposition made a difference in driving Obama to reconsider his choice is unclear. Plenty of other influential groups &#8211; including senators, members of the military and lobbyists for homosexual rights &#8211; expressed their discomfort and opposition to the prospect of having Hagel serve as Defense Secretary. Still it is notable that Hagel&#8217;s possible appointment sparked an outcry among prominent American Jews and that this outcry had some unknown impact on Obama&#8217;s possible decision to cancel Hagel&#8217;s appointment.</p>
<p>If Obama indeed scuttles Hagel&#8217;s elevation to Defense Secretary, it shows that it is possible to fight Obama on foreign policy even in his second term, and <a href="http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2012/12/hagel-obama-and-the-israeli-el.php#">win</a>, at least sometimes. This is important information for Republicans, American Jews, and the Israeli government.</p>
<p>Obama will have multiple, massive domestic challenges to contend with in his second term. If he wishes to focus on advancing his domestic agenda, he may well punt on foreign affairs.</p>
<p>The US President&#8217;s inbox is always overflowing. One of the hardest things for a president to do is take control over his own agenda.</p>
<p>Just consider the issue of gun control. Certainly, as a liberal Democrat, Obama is for it. But Obama has never made the issue of restricting gun ownership  a priority during his presidency. Now in the aftermath of the Newtown massacre, he is suddenly spending a lot of time on the issue and going into a head to head battle with the National Rifle Association.</p>
<p>Maybe Obama will win this battle. Maybe he&#8217;ll lose it. But he will be focusing on it a lot in the coming weeks. Again, this is not an issue that was ever central to his agenda. But due to an unforeseen event, it has become an issue that he is now forced to spend time on.</p>
<p>There are of course, many more foreseeable issues Obama will have to devote his presidential time, energy and capital to. The biggest among them is Obamacare. Budgetary and tax woes are not far behind. With only 24 hours in the day, Obama will not be able to focus on Israel or foreign policy on a daily basis. And in order to make time for other things, which are more important to him, or more immediately pressing, Obama may be willing to back down.</p>
<p>As I was working on my book this morning, I came across an <a href="http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2005/12/the-likuds-strategy.php">article</a> I wrote before the 2006 elections in Israel. In it, I argued that the reason the Sharon government had such good relations with the US was because it bowed to every US demand, no matter how antithetical it was to Israel&#8217;s national interests. At that time, I mentioned Sharon&#8217;s decision to set aside his concerns and bow to US pressure to permit Hamas to participate in the Palestinian Authority&#8217;s legislative elections in January 2006.</p>
<p>For bending to Washington&#8217;s will, Israel got plaudits from Rice and Bush. But we also got Hamas in charge, an even more radicalized Fatah racing to prove its own terror bona fides to measure up to Hamas, and increased international isolation for Israel as nation after nation began softening to the idea of Hamas being a legitimate organization.</p>
<p>In retrospect, it would certainly have been better for Israel &#8211; and for America &#8211; if Sharon had stood up to Rice and simply refused to permit Hamas to participate in the elections. It would have been better to have had a public fight with Washington and kept Hamas out of power than maintain warm relations with the Bush administration while empowering a terror group that openly seeks the annihilation of Israel and the Jewish people.</p>
<p>This brings us to Obama, his apparent decision to stand down on Hagel,  US relations with Israel in Obama&#8217;s second term in office, and finally to how the Israeli election campaign plays into all of these things.</p>
<p>Here in Israel, the Left&#8217;s basic diplomatic attack on Netanyahu involves accusing him of having wrecked  Israel&#8217;s relations with the US by standing up to Obama. But whereas by not standing up to Bush and Rice, Israel got Hamas in power and missiles on Jerusalem, by standing up to Obama, Israel is still in control of Judea and Samaria and the two-state delusion has been increasingly discredited in Israel, and to a lesser degree in the US.</p>
<p>Moreover on Iran, Israel has coaxed a reluctant US administration into passing serious sanctions against Iran, and while the economic pressure hasn&#8217;t made any dent in Iran&#8217;s nuclear weapons program, Israeli pressure has made it harder for Obama to simply accept Iranian nuclear weapons. Vocally expressing Israeli concerns has certainly helped Republicans maintain pressure on Obama to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and publicly support a potential Israeli strike against Iran&#8217;s nuclear installations.</p>
<p>It is understandable that Netanyahu is keeping mum on his diplomatic achievements. He can&#8217;t risk even worse relations with Obama by mentioning his success in keeping the US President at bay in his quest to diminish Israel&#8217;s strategic options.</p>
<p>What makes less sense is his decision to adopt the Left&#8217;s talking points against the Right in his assault on the Jewish Home Party and its leader Naftali Bennett.</p>
<p>Last Thursday Bennett was conned by television personality Nissim Mishal into discussing what his  personal response as a soldier would be to the completely hypothetical issue of IDF expulsions of Jews in Judea and Samaria. The issue is artificial is because no one is proposing a mass expulsions of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria today. The Palestinians are uninterested in negotiating with Israel. Netanyahu is uninterested in surrendering land. And the Left, which would like to cut and run, has no chance of winning next month&#8217;s elections.</p>
<p>So Mishal manipulated Bennett into an irrelevant policy discussion in order to embarrass him.  Bennett said that he would personally object to fulfilling an order to expel Jews from their homes, and if necessary, bear the personal consequences.</p>
<p>Netanyahu himself is quite familiar with Nissim Mishal&#8217;s manipulations of political theater to embarrass candidates on the Right. In 1999, during a televised candidates&#8217; debate when Netanyahu ran for reelection as Prime Minister, Mishal repeatedly interjected himself into the debate to support rival candidate Yitzhak Mordechai&#8217;s character attacks on Netanyahu.</p>
<p>Mordechai, who would be convicted of serial sexual harassment two years later, accused Netanyahu of lacking honesty, integrity and decency, saying &#8220;you know your best friends don&#8217;t believe you.&#8221;</p>
<p>Mishal then chimed in, asking Netanyahu if he had any friends.</p>
<p>Bennett and the Jewish Home party are potentially Likud&#8217;s largest coalition partner. Rather than leave Bennett alone, Likud has opened an all-out war against him, castigating him as an extremist.</p>
<p>I certainly understand the impulse to attack. Bennett is cannibalizing Likud voters. And recently, he opened an ill-advised, counterproductive attack on Likud and Netanyahu. But by attacking one another, Bennett and Netanyahu are discrediting their own positions.</p>
<p>Does Netanyahu really want to argue that it is extremist to oppose the forcible expulsion of Jews from land Netanyahu himself argues Israel needs to defend itself from external invasion?</p>
<p>Does Bennett really want to argue that the prime ministerial candidate he favors, and in whose government he hopes to sit is too weak to be trusted to lead Israel?</p>
<p>Israel faces massive challenges in the coming years. The apparent scuttling of Hagel&#8217;s appointment is a hopeful sign that if we keep our heads about us, we can prevent Obama from taking steps that are truly antithetical to Israel&#8217;s survival.</p>
<p>But we must understand, the reason Hagel&#8217;s appointment was apparently abandoned is because the opposition to his appointment was strong, coherent, and unified. Israel needs a strong, coherent government to meet the challenges it will face in the next four years, including working with a hostile Obama administration. We won&#8217;t get one if the leaders of the nationalist camp are using the Left to weaken and discredit one another.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/caroline-glick/hagel-obama-and-the-israeli-elections/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>55</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Conservative Sellout Is Not the Solution</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/a-conservative-sellout-is-not-the-solution/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=a-conservative-sellout-is-not-the-solution</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/a-conservative-sellout-is-not-the-solution/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2012 04:50:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[centrist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mitt romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=164965</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The rush to centrism is a rush to political suicide for the Right. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/a-conservative-sellout-is-not-the-solution/1106-early-voting-obama-lead_full_600/" rel="attachment wp-att-164969"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-164969" title="1106-Early-Voting-obama-lead_full_600" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/1106-Early-Voting-obama-lead_full_600-450x329.jpg" alt="" width="315" height="230" /></a>Many of you reading this probably felt a kick in the gut when the election results came in. Filled with optimism by Republican pollsters predicting a landslide victory, the outcome came as an even bigger shock.</p>
<p>Losing is never fun or easy and can lead to a temporary state of shell shock in which bad decisions get made. Some in the Republican establishment are now operating in that state of shock and proposing to dismantle every conservative position in the hopes of appearing more moderate in the next election. That is a futile and destructive course of action.</p>
<p>The Republican Party ran two moderates, whose liberal credentials were acknowledged by the media, and lost two presidential elections. Neither Senator McCain nor Governor Romney would have been described as extreme until they ran for president. The same fate will meet any Republican candidate, no matter how moderate or centrist.</p>
<p>Running a candidate who signs off on tax hikes, amnesty for illegal aliens, gay marriage and abortion will not win an election against a Democrat who already stands for all those things. Abandoning fiscal and social conservatism will leave the Republican Party with nothing to offer to the public except its moderate willingness to abandon its principles for other principles that poll better.</p>
<p>To understand why a sellout is not the solution, all we have to do is compare how the Democrats and the Republicans approached the 2012 elections.</p>
<p>The Democrats turned to their base, offering special favors to narrow constituencies, from a unilateral DREAM Act to gay marriage to mandatory abortion coverage. These positions were all extreme and some of them were unpopular, but they brought out the affected groups in large numbers.</p>
<p>The Republican Party neglected its base and rushed to the center in pursuit of the voters that it didn’t have. Romney made an effective case for being the one to fix the economy, but only in generalities, while Obama successfully made the case to groups within his base that he was going to take care of their special interests. While Romney won the macro argument, Obama took the micro and in a low turnout election used it to win.</p>
<p>In response, the Republican establishment seeks to run even further to the center, even though it’s a center defined wholly by the ascendancy of the left, which pulls the center to the left every time it asserts new extremist positions. The only outcome of this strategy is to give the left more uncontested victories while encouraging voters who might have come out for the Republican Party to stay home once again.</p>
<p>The Republican Party has two choices. It can chase after the center, with amnesty and tax cuts in hand, or it can move to the right in order to redefine where the center is. The second way is the path that Reagan and Gingrich took. The first way is what cost Republicans a second election against Obama.</p>
<p>Let’s strip away ideology for a moment and ask the simple question that every voter going to the polls asked. That question was not, as the pollsters put it, “Who do I trust more on the economy?” or “Who showed more leadership based on last night’s debate?” but “Who is going to look out for my economic interests?”</p>
<p>Minority voters voted with their food stamps and race cards. They voted for affirmative action and government jobs. These were votes based on economic interest. Considering the catastrophic toll of the Obama years on the African-American income, it was a shortsighted vote, but Madoff’s clients also thought that they were acting in their own economic interest. And something for nothing looks even more tempting in a bad economy.</p>
<p>But they weren’t the only ones voting with their wallets. The Julia vote came out for free birth control. The gay vote was there for partner benefits. And there were plenty of non-minorities also looking to protect their government benefits, their union jobs and the other touchstones of their economic life. They came out for Obama, not because they had any remaining enthusiasm for him, but because his extremist campaign had given him credibility as a man who would defend his base. A man who would stand up for them.</p>
<p>The Romney campaign was unable to bring out as large a base that was as deeply committed to its own besieged economic interests. Small business owners flocked to Romney and his rallies revealed a depth of passion for free enterprise, but there just weren’t enough people who felt the same way. There weren’t enough workers who felt that Romney would bring back manufacturing, not enough small business owners who really believed that the end of the red tape parade had come and not enough of the unemployed who thought that it was in their economic best interest to vote for Romney. There just weren’t enough voters with that same sense of personal investment in Romney’s agenda that there were in Obama’s agenda.</p>
<p>It’s easy to dismiss them as fools, but that cathartic reaction does not accomplish anything. As any good businessman knows, to rack up sales, you need more than just a good product, you also need good marketing. Cursing the customer because the sales aren’t there accomplishes nothing and is defeatist. The only way to move a product is to convince customers that they need this product and that they can’t live without it.</p>
<p>This is where conservatives are now. We have a great product and lousy marketing. And we have three choices.</p>
<p>We can make our product more like the one sold by our competitors in the hopes of winning over their customers, even though it makes our product indistinguishable from theirs.</p>
<p>We can increase our customer loyalty program and our sales to the people who already buy our product.</p>
<p>Or we can try to move into territories that don’t buy what either side is selling because they don’t see how it serves their economic interests.</p>
<p>Those last two options are not mutually exclusive. However pursuing the first option cuts us off from the second option and makes the third option trickier because moderation is not a selling point to people who already believe that both parties are the same bunch of crooks with no principles. All it does is confirm their thesis.</p>
<p>A political party has to stand for something besides winning elections. There has to be a reason for people to come out and support it and being non-threatening and unprincipled is not a reason; it is an election strategy thought up by consultants who understand chess better than they understand people.</p>
<p>In a tough economic climate, victories go to the candidate that can make a compelling case for the economic interests of the individual, rather than the national economic interest. That is a hard fact of human nature, which is survival oriented, and in this election Democrats understood it and Republicans did not.</p>
<p>The Republican Party does not have an image problem; it has a constituency problem. The GOP can either find a constituency and stand by it, or it can cheat on its constituency at every turn by running for the center. The Democrats won by standing by their constituency. Maybe it’s time that the Republican Party considered following their example.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/a-conservative-sellout-is-not-the-solution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>79</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Demographics Is Destiny</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/demographics-is-destiny/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=demographics-is-destiny</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/demographics-is-destiny/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2012 04:30:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[demographics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gerrymandering]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Immigration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=137794</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How governments choose the people they govern.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/illegal.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-137876" title="illegal" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/illegal.gif" alt="" width="375" height="248" /></a>Elections are won by demographics. No soup company blindly dumps cans of its newest &#8220;Turkey Coconut Bouillon with Nutmeg and Omega 3&#8243; in Aisle 6 of the supermarket without testing to see what demographics such a hideous concoction might appeal to. Will the product appeal to lesbian single mothers, divorced Asian firefighters or eccentric Latvian millionaires? Politics is no different.</p>
<p>A political party has its base, definable groups who groove to its message, who eat up the red meat that its candidates toss their way. It has the demographic groups which will always vote for it and those who might swing its way. It knows them by race, gender, age, class, sexuality, home ownership and a thousand other statistical slices of the pie. It has those numbers broken down by states, cities and neighborhoods so that it has a good estimate of its chances in a given place and time based on the demographics of the people who live there.</p>
<p>This kind of information is helpful for winning elections&#8211; but showing up to play the electoral hand you&#8217;re dealt is for suckers. And by suckers, I mean conservative parties.</p>
<p>Breaking down the demographics is like looking at the cards in your hand. Once you&#8217;ve done that, the only remaining variable in a static game are your opponent&#8217;s cards. With election demographics, players can see all the cards everyone has. That makes the game static. Hands will inevitably be won or lost&#8230; unless you can draw some new cards.</p>
<p>The most obvious way to play the demographic Game of Thrones is with gerrymandered districts. A gerrymandered district is shaped to include a majority of the winning demographic leading to a nearly automatic victory for the party. It&#8217;s the political equivalent of stacking the deck.</p>
<p>Gerrymandered districts are of dubious legality, except when shaped to create a majority-minority district, in which case it becomes an obligation under civil rights laws. This stacks the deck, creating permanent sinecures for some horribly incompetent politicians and permanent seats for the Democratic Party.</p>
<p>But that is just a matter of rearranging the cards in the deck. What if you could bring in cards from outside the deck? What if you could change the value of some cards? Then you would be on the way to being the best cardsharp in Washington D.C. or London or Paris.</p>
<p>Sure you could win elections by creating a few gerrymandered districts, but you couldn&#8217;t win a country that way. To do that, you have to change the national demographics.</p>
<p>Suppose you were running our fictional soup company and you discovered that &#8220;Turkey Coconut Bouillon with Nutmeg and Omega 3&#8243; isn&#8217;t popular with key demographics. The only people who like it are unemployed Pakistani immigrants, lesbian single mothers and divorced Asian firefighters.</p>
<p>Sure you could take a shot at putting out another flavor, but damn it, you like this one. And you also spent your entire advertising budget for the next three years promoting it, and thanks to your ad campaign, everyone now associates your company with &#8220;Turkey Coconut Bouillon with Nutmeg and Omega 3&#8243;. And if people don&#8217;t like it, then your company is doomed.</p>
<p>You could try to change people&#8217;s minds, or you could try to change the demographics to ones that favor your soup. To do that, you would have to bring in a lot of Pakistani immigrants, create a poor economic climate, promote divorce and homosexuality, and create some public sector jobs.</p>
<p>Luckily, no soup company can do that sort of thing. But governments can.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s the neat thing about governments, if they want to change national demographics, bring in more immigrants, create more single-parent families and more unemployment, they can do all those things easily.</p>
<p>Suppose that your statistics show that unemployed people are more likely to vote for you than the employed. Then your goal would be to shift as many of those who ordinarily wouldn&#8217;t vote you from the ranks of the employed to those of the unemployed. And once they were on benefits, they might just come to support you, even though you were the one who maneuvered to deprive them of their employment.</p>
<p>That sort of thing is childishly easy to do if you happen to have a government and a party with extensive partnerships with progressive non-profits and powerful think-tanks and foundations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/demographics-is-destiny/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Egypt&#8217;s President Rolls the Dice for Sharia</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/rick-moran/egypts-president-morsi-rolls-the-dice/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=egypts-president-morsi-rolls-the-dice</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/rick-moran/egypts-president-morsi-rolls-the-dice/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2012 04:47:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rick Moran]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[egypt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Morsi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[muslim brotherhood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parliament]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Council of the Armed Forces]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=137044</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An effort to reinstate the Islamist-led parliament puts the military and Muslim Brotherhood on a collision course. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Mohammed-Mursi-2.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-137058" title="Mohammed-Mursi-2" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Mohammed-Mursi-2.gif" alt="" width="375" height="260" /></a>Egypt&#8217;s President Mohammed Morsi <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hcYCagkBsXUTj1hZernFHUCXOwJA?docId=e941fa50299648849cdc6df07e991e1c">issued a decree</a> on Sunday calling the recently dissolved parliament back into session, thus defying the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) and putting the Islamists and military on a <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hOXs1seGX3hB5cPchFl5lAtlLheQ?docId=CNG.83ef8d1166533158d397ba1348174d80.221">collision course. </a>He also called for new elections to be held 60 days after a new constitution is written. Despite opposition by some members of parliament to the recall, and warnings from the military and the courts, Morsi has chosen to gamble that the protestors in the street will be on his side and that the generals fear violence more than they fear a challenge to their power.</p>
<p>SCAF <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-egypt-morsi-military-20120710,0,2524922.story">dissolved parliament</a> last month after the Supreme Court ruled that a third of the parliamentary elections held earlier this year were invalid due to a technicality. The generals then <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-egypt-morsi-military-20120710,0,2524922.story">seized all legislative power </a>and emasculated the powers of the presidency while taking <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-egypt-morsi-military-20120710,0,2524922.story">control of the process</a> to write a new constitution by issuing a &#8220;constitutional declaration&#8221; that sidelined the Muslim Brotherhood.</p>
<p>Now Morsi is gambling that his efforts to reconstitute parliament &#8212; the major power center of the Islamists &#8212; won&#8217;t push the military into a violent confrontation with the Muslim Brothers and their supporters in the streets.</p>
<p>Not only is Morsi defying SCAF, he is also <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18777150">going against</a> the Supreme Court who warned Morsi <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18777150">in a statement</a> on Monday that its ruling invalidating parliament was &#8220;final&#8221; and binding. This leaves the president out on a very thin limb of legitimacy as even some members of parliament are <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hOXs1seGX3hB5cPchFl5lAtlLheQ?docId=CNG.83ef8d1166533158d397ba1348174d80.221">urging him to back down </a>and obey the law.</p>
<p>With the court&#8217;s unflinching support, the generals issued <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/09/egypt-generals-warn-morsi-constitution?newsfeed=true">their own warning </a>to Morsi saying in a statement that they would continue to support the &#8220;legitimacy, constitution and law&#8221; &#8212; language that suggests they might take action if the Islamists try to convene parliament.</p>
<p>However, no one appears ready, or anxious, <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-egypt-morsi-military-20120710,0,2524922.story">for a confrontation.</a> Late Monday evening, the military <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/egypt-president-recalls-parliament-generals-meet-082611335.html">allowed members of parliament</a> to enter the government center in advance of Tuesday&#8217;s meeting. And at a ceremony honoring military school graduates on Monday, President Morsi and SCAF leader Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi, were seen <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/egypt-president-recalls-parliament-generals-meet-082611335.html">chatting amiably </a>together. Their camaraderie appeared to signal that some kind of deal may be in the works.</p>
<p>But the Supreme Court is <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18777150">set to rule</a> on three challenges to Morsi&#8217;s decree also on Tuesday. An adverse decision may give Morsi a chance to back down &#8212; or an excuse for a military crackdown if Morsi continues to defy the court.</p>
<p>Morsi believes he is not defying the Supreme Court by calling parliament back into session because the judges only invalidated 1/3 of the elections. He insists <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hcYCagkBsXUTj1hZernFHUCXOwJA?docId=e941fa50299648849cdc6df07e991e1c">that his decision</a> is an &#8220;assertion of the popular will,&#8221; aimed at overturning the decision made by SCAF to dissolve parliament. &#8220;We affirm that there is no confrontation with the judiciary and the decision respects the verdict of the constitutional court,&#8221; said <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/egypt-president-recalls-parliament-generals-meet-082611335.html">presidential aide Yasser Ali</a>.  It seems a thin reed on which to hang such a consequential gamble. This is especially true given the Supreme Court&#8217;s counter to Morsi&#8217;s move. The judges <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-egypt-morsi-military-20120710,0,2524922.story">said in a statement</a>, that its duty was &#8220;to prevent any aggression&#8221; against the constitution, and that its findings &#8220;are final &#8230; [and] binding on all state authorities.&#8221;</p>
<p>Many lawmakers agree with the court. &#8220;The executive decision to bring back parliament shows a disregard for the judicial authority and takes Egypt into a constitutional coma and a conflict between the institutions,&#8221; Nobel laureate and political dissident <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hOXs1seGX3hB5cPchFl5lAtlLheQ?docId=CNG.83ef8d1166533158d397ba1348174d80.221">Mohamed ElBaradei wrote </a>on Twitter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/rick-moran/egypts-president-morsi-rolls-the-dice/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 1536/1675 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 02:38:36 by W3 Total Cache -->