<?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; New</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/new/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 14:36:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>ObamaCare&#8217;s Abysmal Numbers</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/obamacares-abysmal-numbers/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obamacares-abysmal-numbers</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/obamacares-abysmal-numbers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2014 04:53:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[8 million]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cancelled]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enrollees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exchanges]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obamacare]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=225389</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The truth about the president's "eight million" new enrollees.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/cancelled-policy600.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-225396" alt="cancelled-policy*600" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/cancelled-policy600-387x350.jpg" width="310" height="280" /></a>The ongoing efforts by the Obama administration and their media apparatchiks to boost the “soaring&#8221; enrollment figures of ObamaCare have hit another bump in the road. Despite administration’s highly dubious figure of </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-obamacare-enrollment-20140418-story.html#page=1">eight million</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> enrollments, the latest McKinsey </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://healthcare.mckinsey.com/sites/default/files/McKinsey%20Reform%20Center_Individual%20Market%20Post%20OEP%20Trends.pdf">survey</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> tracking the health insurance market’s first open enrollment period reveals that a staggering 74 percent of those who signed up for the plan were previously insured. Furthermore, McKinsey &#8220;confidently” </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/05/12/mckinsey-75-percent-of-obamacare-enrollees-were-previously-insured-n1836419">states</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> that only 1.7 million enrollees were previously uninsured and another 865,000 purchased coverage off the exchanges. Thus, Americans have endured a complete upheaval of the nation’s healthcare system to provide coverage for only 2.6 million additional individual market enrollees.</span></p>
<p>And as most Americans know, the eight million touted by the administration as enrolled makes no distinction between those who have “signed up” for Obamacare, and those who have actually paid for their plans. McKinsey puts the percentage of those who have actually paid their first month’s premium at 83 percent.</p>
<p>What a lot of Americans don’t know is that a number of enrollees are <a href="http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/05/07/confirmed-many-of-obamacares-8-million-enrollees-are-duplicates-n1834786">duplicates</a>, due to ongoing problems with the “back end” of the <a href="http://healthcare.gov/">Healthcare.gov</a> website, which <i>still</i> remains <a href="http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/04/28/politico-by-the-way-healthcaregov-is-still-missing-massive-critical-pieces-n1830122">under construction</a>. Thus, people who were unsure if they initially got coverage were encouraged to go through the process a second time. How many of those “double enrollees” were counted twice remains a mystery.</p>
<p>But perhaps the most glaring reality omitted by ObamaCare’s cheerleaders is this: they are touting the success of a plan that Americans are <i>required</i> to purchase, lest they face IRS scrutiny and/or a fine for failing to do so.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, this so-called success is what prompted President Obama at an April 17 press conference to <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-press-conference-obamacare-ukraine-putin-russia-2014-4">announce</a> that &#8220;the repeal debate is and should be over,” and that ObamaCare &#8220;is working.” The president was aiming his remarks at Republicans, belittling them in the process. &#8220;I recognize that their party is going through the stages of grief—anger, denial, all that stuff,&#8221; Obama smugly declared. &#8220;We&#8217;re not at acceptance yet.”</p>
<p>Despite the president’s arrogance, the American public, a far more important component in this equation than the GOP, is not “at acceptance yet” either. A Washington Post-ABC <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/04/29/National-Politics/Polling/release_342.xml">poll</a> conducted in April reveals that 29 percent of the public believes the quality of care they receive is getting worse, compared to only 14 percent who believe it is getting better, a more than two-to-one margin. A majority of Americans believe it has stayed the same.</p>
<p>Nearly the same two-to-one margin, 44 percent to 24 percent, applies to Americans who believe the the <i>entire nation’s</i> healthcare system is getting worse, with only a third saying it is staying the same. Cost comparisons are also bleak, with 47 percent saying healthcare costs have increased, compared to only 8 percent reporting cost decreases. Similar percentages apply to the entire nation’s healthcare costs, with 58 percent of Americans seeing increases, compared to 11 percent who see decreases. Yet perhaps the most important question in this survey asked Americans if they approved of the way Obama was handling the implementation of the law. A whopping 57 percent disapproved, compared to only 37 who approved. O<span style="line-height: 1.5em;">ne thing is clear: all of the above makes an utter mockery of the idea that the ObamaCare debate is over.</span></p>
<p>And why should it be? Even before the president unilaterally postponed business mandates that threaten million of additional Americans with policy cancellations take effect, the string of broken promises attached to the healthcare bill remain inarguable. Despite the promise to “bend” healthcare costs down, ObamaCare is expected to <a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/news/government-says-health-spending-jump-200148498.html">increase</a> healthcare spending by 6.1 precent this year, compared to a growth rate of less than 4 percent the previous four years. Two-thirds of businesses that currently offer health insurance to their workers will see <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-small-business/obama-administration-health-laws-new-rules-will-increase-costs-for-most-small-businesses/2014/02/24/0623d01e-9d9c-11e3-9ba6-800d1192d08b_story.html">increases</a> as well, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).</p>
<p>Nor did premiums drop by $2500 for the “typical family&#8221; as the president <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/521/cut-cost-typical-familys-health-insurance-premium-/">promised</a>—when he wasn’t busy promising Americans who got insurance through their employer that their premiums could <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUd-slJc-GY">drop</a> by as much as 3000 percent. In fact, according to health industry officials interviewed in March, premium costs will <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/201136-obamacare-premiums-are-about-to-skyrocket">double</a> in some parts of the country next year. As for jobs, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) <a href="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304626804579362691500388668">projected</a> in February that the reduction in the the total number of hours Americans work due to ObamaCare will be equivalent to a 2.3 million reduction in full-time jobs in 2021. The CBO had previously estimated a workforce reduction equivalent of only 800,000 jobs. If such revisions have a familiar ring, maybe it’s because Democrats’ initial promise that ObamaCare would only cost $848 billion over a decade was as empty as any of the others: ObamaCare’s ten-year cost estimate now <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-obamacare-s-10-year-costs-will-now-eclipse-2-trillion_778723.html">surpasses</a> $2 trillion.</p>
<p>And who can possibly forget the most glaring &#8220;broken promise&#8221; of all, more accurately referred to as Politifact’s <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/">2013 Lie of the Year</a> &#8211; President Obama’s oft-repeated contention that Americans can keep their insurance policies and/or their doctors and other healthcare providers?</p>
<p>Yet the fundamental flaw in the whole enterprise is <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/377736/notice-not-obamacare-ramesh-ponnuru/page/0/1">best described</a> by National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru who notes that &#8220;the picture of Obamacare today looks more like one the critics painted than the one supporters did: a lot of trouble for a small gain.”</p>
<p>Yet even those small gains may be ephemeral. As Bloomberg News revealed last October, there is an &#8220;accelerating trend&#8221; of healthcare providers <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-14/patients-pay-before-seeing-doctor-as-deductibles-spread.html">demanding</a> upfront payments for non-emergency care as insurance deductibles rise. That trend will undoubtedly be <a href="http://nypost.com/2014/04/13/the-next-obamacare-disasters/">exacerbated</a> by ObamaCare, due in large part to a provision in the law that provides enrollees a 90-day grace period of premium nonpayments before their insurance can be cancelled—even as the insurance companies themselves remain liable for payments to providers for only 30 of those 90 days. The remaining 60 days leave the provider on the hook for collecting their fees. Furthermore, the aforementioned small businesses looking at rate increases may decide to drop coverage altogether, putting another 20-30 million Americans in the same boat as the <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2014/01/06/the-obamacare-law-devours-itself-with-exemptions-amid-5-million-and-counting-cancellations/">5 million</a> Americans who had their policies cancelled because they failed to meet the new requirements.</p>
<p>Another trend likely to accelerate is the <a href="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304450904579365373011903340">narrowing</a> of provider networks, as insurance companies strive to contain costs by eliminating more doctors and healthcare facilities from the list of options provided to enrollees. Lawmakers in many states are looking for ways to force insurers to expand those networks, and a federal proposal aims to give the CMS the power to require insurance companies to provide a full list of providers in a network. But as mentioned above, that in turn is likely to push overall premium costs higher.</p>
<p>As the McKinsey study notes, this also does not bode well for the future. Despite an increase of previously uninsured respondents shopping for insurance from 44 percent to 61 percent between their February and April surveys, McKinsey notes that only 21 percent of those shoppers reported enrolling in plan. This rate is far lower than the one for those who had insurance before ObamaCare became the law of the land.</p>
<p>The most prevalent reason cited for exiting the purchasing process? Perceived affordability, with the highest percentage of those refusing to buy being &#8220;previously uninsured and subsidy-eligible.” This means a plan primarily designed to attract more lower-income Americans who have never had health insurance due to affordability issues isn’t living up to expectations.</p>
<p>Moreover, Americans should never forget that all of this is happening even as two other major variables remain unresolved. First, the mechanism for a taxpayer bailout of insurance providers remains in effect. These so-called “risk corridors” allow providers to set their premium prices artificially <i>lower </i>until the end of 2016. After that, without underwriting by the federal government, premiums could skyrocket even higher. Second, the employer mandate affecting mid-sized companies with 50 to 99 full-time employees, and larger companies with 100 employees or more, has been <a href="http://www.nfib.com/article/obamacare-implementation-postponed-64768/">postponed</a> until 2016. It remains to be seen how many more policy cancellations will result when Democrats can no longer kick <i>that</i> politically-charged can past another election cycle.</p>
<p><i>Washington Post</i> columnist Charles Krauthammer <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-Obamacare-healthcare-Charles-Krauthammer/2014/04/18/id/566333/">sums up</a> the entire picture as it currently stands. &#8220;Everybody is getting a worse deal,” he contends. &#8220;If the providers are, that means the doctors aren&#8217;t getting their usual payments, which means they have to see much more patients, which means they spend less time, which means the care is inferior, that means they are reimbursed at a lower rate, which means some of them will go out of business.”</p>
<p>He also addresses the president’s unseemly spiking of the ObamaCare ball. &#8220;Which is going to have more effect on the voter&#8211;Obama in a press conference in a holiday week throwing out a number, 8 million, which means nothing?” he asks. &#8220;Or knowing someone in your family, or you, losing health insurance, having your hours reduced so your employer can call you part-time—losing your job, losing hours&#8211;all of this stuff affecting you personally?</p>
<p>No matter how one answers those questions one thing is certain: America has a long, <i>long</i> way to go before any debate regarding ObamaCare is over.</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/obamacares-abysmal-numbers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>25</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Carter at Cardozo: It’s Not the “New-Anti-Semitism” &#8212; It&#8217;s the Older Kind</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/charles-jacobs-and-ilya-feoktistov/carter-at-cardozo-its-not-the-new-anti-semitism-its-the-older-kind/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=carter-at-cardozo-its-not-the-new-anti-semitism-its-the-older-kind</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/charles-jacobs-and-ilya-feoktistov/carter-at-cardozo-its-not-the-new-anti-semitism-its-the-older-kind/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2013 04:55:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Charles Jacobs and Ilya Feoktistov]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anti-Semitism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jew-Hate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jimmy Carter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Old]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=185164</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A disturbing glimpse into the roots of Carter's animus towards Israel. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/charles-jacobs-and-ilya-feoktistov/carter-at-cardozo-its-not-the-new-anti-semitism-its-the-older-kind/carter-2/" rel="attachment wp-att-185171"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-185171" title="carter" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/carter.jpg" alt="" width="252" height="300" /></a>The Yeshiva University’s Cardozo Law School is facing a fire storm of protest for honoring former President Jimmy Carter because of Carter’s animus towards Israel. But who they indeed may be about to honor is an old fashioned anti-Semite.</p>
<p>As decades-old tapes from his Church Sunday school lessons reveal, former President Jimmy Carter’s bias against the Jewish state may come more from an old fashioned Christian animus toward Judaism than from concerns over the situation of Palestinians. Carter taught Christian students in Plains Georgia that Judaism teaches Jews to feel superior to non-Jews, that Jewish religious practices are tricks to enhance wealth, and that current Israeli policy toward Palestinians is based on these “Jewish” values and practices.</p>
<p>In a series of sermons Carter recorded between 1999 and 2003 that were published as a CD set by Simon and Schuster called “Sunday Mornings in Plains,” Carter attacks modern Israel by retreading ancient anti-Semitic tropes that go back to the early church fathers and the Judaism/Christianity schism that gave birth to a millennia of Christian persecution of Jews.</p>
<p>(For a thorough discussion of the emergence and analysis of these tapes, see <a href="http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/236/is-bible-teacher-jimmy-carter-jew-hater">Phyllis Chesler</a>).</p>
<p>Here are salient examples:</p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">[1] Jews hate and feel superior to non-Jews</span>.</p>
<p>In the tapes, one hears &#8212; in Southern drawl &#8212; his ancient animus: Jews hate non-Jews.:</p>
<p>“…this morning I’m gonna be trying to relate the assigned Bible lesson to us in the Uniformed Series with how that affected Israel and how it affects us through Christ personally…  It’s hard for us to even visualize the prejudice against gentiles when Christ came on earth. If a Jew married a gentile, that person was considered to be dead. …  How would you characterize from a Jew’s point of view the uncircumcised? Non believer? And what? Unclean, what? They called them DOGS! That’s true.  … What was Paul’s feeling toward gentiles in his early life as a Jewish leader? [Paul was not a Jewish leader. Ed.] Anybody? Absolute commitment to persecution! To the imprisonment and even the execution of non-Jews who now professed faith in Jesus Christ. …  … We know the differences in the Middle East. But the differences there are between Jews on the one hand who comprise the dominating force both militarily and also politically and the Palestinians who are both Muslim and Christians. …”</p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">[2] Jewish ritual sacrifice is a dodge that relieves one from taking care of one’s parents, while preserving one’s wealth</span>:</p>
<p>“Corban was a uh prayer that could be performed by usually a man in an endorsed ceremony by the Pharisees that you could say in effect, ‘God, everything that I own all these sheep all these goats this nice house and the money that I have, I dedicate to you, to God.’ And from then on according to the Pharisees law those riches didn’t belong to that person anymore. They were whose? God’s! So as long as those riches were belonged to the person, that person was supposed to share them with needy parents right? But once it was God’s it wasn’t theirs and they didn’t have anything to share with their parents. So with impunity, and approved by the Pharisaic law, they could avoid taking care of their needy parents by a trick that had been evolved by the incorrect and improper interpretation of the law primarily designed by religious leaders to benefit whom? The rich folks! The powerful people! Because the poor man wouldn’t have all of this stuff to give to God. He would probably, in fact he might very well have his parents in the house with him or still be living with his own parents.&#8221;</p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">[3] Carter ties this Jewish feelings of superiority and religious malevolence to current Israeli policy</span>:</p>
<p>“One reason is that the Israeli government headed now by Netanyahu has to depend on the ultra-right or fundamentalist Jews to give them a majority in the parliament which they call the Knesset, and the recent resignation of foreign minister Levy has left Netanyahu with only one vote margin in the parliament. So the ultra-conservative Jewish leaders demand always that they have total control over anything that relates to religion inside Israel, in particular in Jerusalem. Well, I’m not here to condemn anyone but to point out that even within ourselves, there is an inclination for, I’d say, a feeling of superiority. Wouldn’t you think so? Would you agree? I know I have it.”</p>
<p>Carter’s beef with the Jews is not simply a disagreement over how Israel should treat the Palestinians. His is a deep theological hatred of the type that most Christians (including the Vatican in the 1960s Nostra Aetate) have long disavowed. This is not the “new anti-Semitism: it’s the old. All the more indefensible for an orthodox Jewish religious institution to give this man an award.</p>
<p><strong>Please take 2 minutes out of your busy schedules to express your concern to the Dean of </strong></p>
<p><strong>Cardozo and President of Yeshiva University and to the Board of Trustees. Contact details: </strong><br />
<strong></strong></p>
<p><strong>Professor Matthew Diller, Dean of Cardozo:<br />
Tel &#8211; </strong><a href="tel:212-790-0310" target="_blank"><strong>212-790-0310</strong></a><strong>; Email &#8211; </strong><a href="mailto:mdiller@yu.edu" target="_blank"><strong>mdiller@yu.edu</strong></a></p>
<p><strong>Professor Richard Joel, President of Yeshiva University:<br />
Tel &#8211; </strong><a href="tel:212%20960%205300" target="_blank"><strong>212 960 5300</strong></a><strong>;  </strong><strong>Email </strong><a href="mailto:president@yu.edu" target="_blank"><strong>president@yu.edu</strong></a></p>
<p><strong>Board of Trustees:</strong></p>
<p><a href="mailto:bonnie.steingart@friedfrank.com" target="_blank">bonnie.steingart@friedfrank.com</a></p>
<p><a href="mailto:D.Samson@Marlins.com" target="_blank">D.Samson@Marlins.com</a></p>
<p><a href="mailto:emack@mackcompany.com" target="_blank">emack@mackcompany.com</a></p>
<p><a href="mailto:enathan@whafh.com" target="_blank">enathan@whafh.com</a></p>
<p><a href="mailto:eric.cohen@terex.com" target="_blank">eric.cohen@terex.com</a></p>
<p><a href="mailto:gary.holtzer@weil.com" target="_blank">gary.holtzer@weil.com</a></p>
<p><a href="mailto:GREENBERG8@AOL.COM" target="_blank">GREENBERG8@AOL.COM</a></p>
<p><a href="mailto:hkressel@warburgpincus.com" target="_blank">hkressel@warburgpincus.com</a></p>
<p><a href="mailto:jgrubman@innovativephilanthropy.com" target="_blank">jgrubman@innovativephilanthropy.com</a></p>
<p><a href="mailto:lruben@rubenco.com" target="_blank">lruben@rubenco.com</a></p>
<p><a href="mailto:mkornreich@tiaa-cref.org" target="_blank">mkornreich@tiaa-cref.org</a></p>
<p><a href="mailto:myagerman@smithmazure.com" target="_blank">myagerman@smithmazure.com</a></p>
<p><a href="mailto:pdbrusiloff@debevoise.com" target="_blank">pdbrusiloff@debevoise.com</a></p>
<p><a href="mailto:president@yu.edu" target="_blank">president@yu.edu</a></p>
<p><a href="mailto:rperkal@irvingplacecapital.com" target="_blank">rperkal@irvingplacecapital.com</a></p>
<p>Shai Waisman &lt;<a href="mailto:shai@centeliscap.com" target="_blank">shai@centeliscap.com</a>&gt;</p>
<p><a href="mailto:stephen.schulte@srz.com" target="_blank">stephen.schulte@srz.com</a></p>
<p><a href="mailto:sweiss@seegerweiss.com" target="_blank">sweiss@seegerweiss.com</a></p>
<p>Rosemary Byrne &lt;<a href="mailto:rcb@sbscoaching.com" target="_blank">rcb@sbscoaching.com</a>&gt;</p>
<p><a href="mailto:wgreenblatt@sterlinginfosystems.com" target="_blank">wgreenblatt@sterlinginfosystems.com</a></p>
<p><strong>Charles Jacobs and Ilya Feoktistov are President and Research Director, respectively, of Americans for Peace and Tolerance (<a href="http://www.peaceandtolerance.org">www.peaceandtolerance.org</a>) </strong></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/charles-jacobs-and-ilya-feoktistov/carter-at-cardozo-its-not-the-new-anti-semitism-its-the-older-kind/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>230</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Taliban: New and Improved?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/robert-spencer/taliban-new-and-improved/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=taliban-new-and-improved</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/robert-spencer/taliban-new-and-improved/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 04:44:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Spencer]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enemy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[negotiations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taliban]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=121132</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Playing to an easily foolable audience in Washington.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/taliban.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-121135" title="taliban" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/taliban.jpg" alt="" width="450" height="300" /></a></p>
<p>Apparently the Taliban are softening, even allowing girls to get an education. Clearly this heralds an opening to the West, a heady indication that their most repressive days are past them, and that soon they will take their place among the free people of the earth. Soon they will be following the teachings of Naomi Wolf and Thomas Paine.</p>
<p>Yaroslav Trofimov, in a piece that ran Sunday in the <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203806504577177074111336352.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird">Wall Street Journal</a>, noted that Maulvi Qalamuddin, who headed the Committee to Protect Virtue and Prevent Vice back when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, has completely changed his tune regarding the education of girls. Where once he oversaw the shutting-down, sometimes violently, of girls’ schools, now he says: “Education for women is just as necessary as education for men. In Islam, men and women have the same duty to pray, to fast—and to seek learning.”</p>
<p>Anyone who believes this, or believes that Maulvi Qalamuddin believes it, should contact me, as I have a lovely bridge to sell you. “War is deceit,” said Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, according to a famous hadith, and the Taliban are listening. But the Taliban are to be forgiven for thinking that this sort of thing would play well in Washington, for it very likely will. After all, Joe Biden is still the Vice President – the amiable dunce who recently said: “Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy. That’s critical. There is not a single statement that the president has ever made in any of our policy assertions that the Taliban is our enemy because it threatens U.S. interests. If, in fact, the Taliban is able to collapse the existing government, which is cooperating with us in keeping the bad guys from being able to do damage to us, then that becomes a problem for us.”</p>
<p>In other words, the Taliban might win, so we have to surrender and act as if we’re just fine with that. And the alternative? Hamid Karzai, who got so annoyed with his American patrons last year that he threatened to join the Taliban himself. The Karzai government, that has been so helpful in “cooperating with us in keeping the bad guys from being able to do damage to us” that an increasing number of American and allied soldiers have recently fallen victim to surprise attacks from Afghan army forces that are supposed to be on our side.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/robert-spencer/taliban-new-and-improved/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>21</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Michael Reagan – “The New Reagan Revolution” &#124; Speech</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/dashton/michael-reagan-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9cthe-new-reagan-revolution%e2%80%9d-speech/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=michael-reagan-%25e2%2580%2593-%25e2%2580%259cthe-new-reagan-revolution%25e2%2580%259d-speech</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/dashton/michael-reagan-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9cthe-new-reagan-revolution%e2%80%9d-speech/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2011 21:54:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[FPM Admin]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[DHTV]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michael Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reagan revolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Revolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speech]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=93106</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="255" src="http://blip.tv/play/AYK59CkC" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/dashton/michael-reagan-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9cthe-new-reagan-revolution%e2%80%9d-speech/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CUNY Caves to Leftist Pressure on Tony Kushner</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/arnold-ahlert/cuny-caves-to-leftist-pressure-on-tony-kushner/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=cuny-caves-to-leftist-pressure-on-tony-kushner</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/arnold-ahlert/cuny-caves-to-leftist-pressure-on-tony-kushner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2011 04:36:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artistic contributions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[benno schmidt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[initial decision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jewish]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matthew goldstein]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tony kushner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trustee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vote]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=93003</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Israel-hater and defamer will get his honorary degree.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/TonyKushner-thumb-572xauto-388681.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-93010" title="TonyKushner-thumb-572xauto-38868" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/TonyKushner-thumb-572xauto-388681.jpg" alt="" width="375" height="297" /></a></p>
<p>In a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/nyregion/in-reversal-cuny-votes-to-honor-tony-kushner.html">meeting</a> convened Monday night, the executive committee of the Board of Trustees of the City University of New York (CUNY), voted to approve an honorary degree for playwright Tony Kushner. The 6-1 vote reversed a previous decision by the overall board to table Mr. Kushner&#8217;s degree when trustee Jeffery Weisenfeld revealed Mr. Kushner&#8217;s heinous anti-Israel views, including his belief that the Jewish State was responsible for &#8220;ethnic cleansing.&#8221; The original decision ignited a firestorm of criticism directed primarily at Mr. Weisenfeld, despite the reality that last week&#8217;s final vote was 11-1 against honoring Kushner. The immense degree of pressure orchestrated by the political left, notwithstanding the near unanimous initial decision, evidently has triumphed.</p>
<p>In an attempt to deflect responsibility for their original vote, some trustees claimed they had been caught &#8220;off guard&#8221; by Mr. Weisenfeld&#8217;s objections. CUNY Chancellor <a href="http://www.cuny.edu/about/administration/chancellor/biography.html">Dr. Matthew Goldstein</a> echoed that rationale, saying he wasn&#8217;t sure &#8220;why the appropriate people didn’t chime in at that time.” Goldstein then offered a <a href="http://www1.cuny.edu/mu/forum/2011/05/09/statement-by-chancellor-matthew-goldstein-of-the-city-university-of-new-york-2/">statement</a> in which he &#8220;consistently expressed that Mr. Kushner’s extraordinary body of work and enormous artistic contributions should be recognized by this University.&#8221; Another trustee, Kathleen M. Pesile, claimed that the executive board was &#8220;now correcting [the original vote] because it benefits CUNY and we will not get another chance to remove this blemish.” Board Chairman <a href="http://www.kauffman.org/about-foundation/benno-schmidt-trustee.aspx">Benno Schmidt</a> also characterized the original vote as &#8220;a mistake of principle and not merely of policy.&#8221; It was Schmidt who urged Mr. Goldstein to convene the executive committee meeting to reconsider the vote of the entire board &#8212; even as he remained out of the country when the final vote was taken. Why the executive committee and not the full board? Perhaps because Mr. Weisenfeld is not a member of the executive committee.</p>
<p>He is, however, both unsurprised by the board&#8217;s decision, and unrepentant for taking a stand. When I asked him if the executive board had a legal right to overrule the entire board of trustees, he indicated that they did, but said that &#8220;it is such a rarely invoked instance to overturn the board, that it has never transpired in my 12 years as a member,&#8221; adding that he had talked to others whose membership on the board pre-dated his, and they couldn&#8217;t remember an instance either. He was not critical of either Mr. Goldstein or Mr. Schmidt for overriding the board, claiming he is both &#8220;aware&#8221; and &#8220;respectful&#8221; of their worldviews.</p>
<p>Yet it is those worldviews which prompted the decision to overturn the original ruling after the board&#8217;s refusal to grant Kushner an honorary degree was deemed an outrage by liberals. NY Times blogger Clyde Haberman <a href="http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/kushner-debacle-wont-be-the-last-of-its-kind/?ref=cityuniversityofnewyork">opined</a> that &#8220;the trustees seemed to have collectively blanked on the fact that Mr. Kushner’s opinions of Israel &#8212; good or bad, definitely not indifferent &#8212; had nothing to do with John Jay’s reason for extolling him.&#8221; Former NYC Mayor Ed Koch also said that Mr. Kushner’s personal views should have nothing to do with his academic honor, and that Mr. Weisenfeld should resign from the board. “What does Kushner receiving an award have to do with criticism of the State of Israel?” Mr. Koch asked.</p>
<p>But Mr. Haber is being disingenuous. Mr. Kushner&#8217;s politics are an integral part of his artistic work, including his deliberate re-writing of history in both his play <a href="http://www.signaturetheatre.org/angels/">&#8220;Angels in America,&#8221;</a> which depicts convicted spies <a href="http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1353311/Julius-Rosenberg-and-Ethel-Rosenberg">Julius and Ethel Rosenberg</a> as innocent victims of McCarthyism, and his movie <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0408306/">&#8220;Munich,&#8221;</a> in which Israeli commandos are shown as overcome by guilt for avenging the murder of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympic games. Thus, it is Mr. Kushner himself who makes his politics relevant.</p>
<p>And Mr. Koch is being a politician. Despite public excoriation of Mr. Weisenfeld, he sent the trustee a note which Mr. Weisenfeld gave me permission to quote from, but not publish. Mr. Koch expressed his appreciation for Mr. Weisnefeld&#8217;s &#8220;generous remarks&#8221; about him in the Jewish Press, and added that while he disagreed with Mr. Weisenfeld on &#8220;this particular issue&#8221; he admired his &#8220;strength of purpose and character particularly so in [his] support of Israel.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/arnold-ahlert/cuny-caves-to-leftist-pressure-on-tony-kushner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Michael Reagan &#8211; &#8220;The New Reagan Revolution&#8221; &#124; Intro</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/dashton/michael-reagan-the-new-reagan-revolution/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=michael-reagan-the-new-reagan-revolution</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/dashton/michael-reagan-the-new-reagan-revolution/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 May 2011 16:29:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[FPM Admin]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[DHTV]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michael Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reagan revolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Revolution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=92807</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><embed src="http://blip.tv/play/AYK58XUC" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="255" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/dashton/michael-reagan-the-new-reagan-revolution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Palestinians&#8217; Case Against Israel Is A Genocidal Lie</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/frontpagemag-com/freedom-centers-ad-in-todays-new-york-times-1/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=freedom-centers-ad-in-todays-new-york-times-1</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/frontpagemag-com/freedom-centers-ad-in-todays-new-york-times-1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 04:40:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anti-Semitism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[College]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[college campuses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom-center]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[muslim student associations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nothing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[palestinian case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[today]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=92085</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The New York Times runs our half-page ad in defense of Israel. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/genocide-ad-132.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-92086" title="genocide-ad-13" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/genocide-ad-132.jpg" alt="" width="560" height="509" /></a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The ad below appears in today&#8217;s <em>New York Times</em>.   This half-page ad exposes the Palestinian case against Israel for what  it is.  Nothing but lies.  <a href="http://walloflies.org/">We have run</a> ads similar to this on a number  of college campuses this Spring to counter the &#8220;Apartheid Weeks&#8221;, the  rise of the Muslim Student Associations and the dramatic rise of  anti-Semitism in our Universities.</p>
<p>The  Freedom Center is<a href="http://walloflies.org/"> committed to defending Israel</a> and what they stand  for, and to fight anti-Semitism, not only on the campuses, but in our  government, the media and in society at large.</p>
<div><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/genocide-ad-131.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-91902" title="genocide-ad-13" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/genocide-ad-131.jpg" alt="" width="630" height="572" /></a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/frontpagemag-com/freedom-centers-ad-in-todays-new-york-times-1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Palestinians&#8217; Case Against Israel Is A Genocidal Lie</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/frontpagemag-com/freedom-centers-ad-in-todays-new-york-times/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=freedom-centers-ad-in-todays-new-york-times</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/frontpagemag-com/freedom-centers-ad-in-todays-new-york-times/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 May 2011 04:00:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anti-Semitism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[College]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[college campuses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom-center]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[muslim student associations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nothing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[palestinian case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[today]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=91900</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The New York Times runs our half-page ad in defense of Israel. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/genocide-ad-13.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-91901" title="genocide-ad-13" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/genocide-ad-13.jpg" alt="" width="630" height="572" /></a></p>
<p>The ad below appears in today&#8217;s <em>New York Times</em>.   This half-page ad exposes the Palestinian case against Israel for what  it is.  Nothing but lies.  <a href="http://walloflies.org/">We have run</a> ads similar to this on a number  of college campuses this Spring to counter the &#8220;Apartheid Weeks&#8221;, the  rise of the Muslim Student Associations and the dramatic rise of  anti-Semitism in our Universities.</p>
<p>The  Freedom Center is<a href="http://walloflies.org/"> committed to defending Israel</a> and what they stand  for, and to fight anti-Semitism, not only on the campuses, but in our  government, the media and in society at large.</p>
<div><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/genocide-ad-131.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-91902" title="genocide-ad-13" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/genocide-ad-131.jpg" alt="" width="630" height="572" /></a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/frontpagemag-com/freedom-centers-ad-in-todays-new-york-times/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>23</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Elian Gonzalez: When Eric Holder Earned His Spurs</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/humberto-fontova/elian-gonzalez-when-eric-holder-earned-his-spurs/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=elian-gonzalez-when-eric-holder-earned-his-spurs</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/humberto-fontova/elian-gonzalez-when-eric-holder-earned-his-spurs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2011 04:20:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Humberto Fontova]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Andrew Napolitano]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Black Panther Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deputy attorney general]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Miguel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new black panther party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new black panthers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[warrant]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=91551</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Remembering how Clinton’s INS forcibly returned a Cuban slave when Castro clapped his hands.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/elian.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-91617" title="elian" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/elian.jpg" alt="" width="419" height="313" /></a></p>
<p>The New Black Panther Party threatened Philadelphia voters with billy clubs and Eric Holder’s justice department couldn’t be bothered. CAIR was accused of fundraising for Hamas, and Eric Holder shrugged.</p>
<p>But back when Fidel Castro demanded the return of an escaped slave, Eric Holder snapped to attention, clicked his heels, and sprung to action. It is scrupulous legality, we’re given to understand by Mr. Holder, that prevents his Department from prosecutions against the New Black Panthers and CAIR.</p>
<p>But regarding scrupulous legality, Fox News Andrew Napolitano had (then Deputy) Attorney General Eric Holder’s number way back in April 23<sup>rd</sup>, 2000. Here it is thanks to <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/06/13/obama-vp-committe-member-helped-enable-2000-elian-gonzalez-seizure">The Media Research Center:</a></p>
<p><strong>Napolitano: </strong>Tell me, Mr. Holder, why did you not get a court order authorizing you to go in and get the boy (Elian Gonzalez)?</p>
<p><strong>Holder:</strong> Because we didn’t need a court order. INS can do this on its own.</p>
<p><strong>Napolitano: </strong>You know that a court order would have given you the cloak of respectability to have seized the boy.</p>
<p><strong>Holder: </strong>We didn’t need an order.</p>
<p><strong>Napolitano: </strong>Then why did you ask the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for such an order if you didn’t need one?</p>
<p><strong>Holder:</strong> [Silence]</p>
<p><strong>Napolitano: </strong>The fact is, for the first time in history you have taken a child from his residence at gunpoint to enforce your custody position, even though you did not have an order authorizing it. When is the last time a boy, a child, was taken at the point of a gun without an order of a judge…Unprecedented in American history.&#8221;</p>
<p><strong>Holder: </strong>&#8220;He was not taken at the point of a gun.&#8221;</p>
<p><strong>Napolitano:</strong> &#8220;We have a photograph showing he was taken at the point of a gun.&#8221;</p>
<p><strong>Holder: </strong>&#8220;They were armed agents who went in there who acted very sensitively&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>Thanks to the ritual MSM-Castroite collusion most people forget (or missed) the crucial legal and ethical details of this circus/tragedy — which were mostly established during the first week after Elian’s rescue at sea, after his heroic mother’s drowning. The “son-belongs-with-his-father” crowd, for instance, “missed” (with the help of the MSM-Democratic complex) that Elian’s father was initially delighted that his motherless son was in the U.S. and in the loving arms of his uncles and cousins.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/humberto-fontova/elian-gonzalez-when-eric-holder-earned-his-spurs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>23</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Disasters and Double Standards</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/andrew-cline/disasters-and-double-standards/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=disasters-and-double-standards</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/andrew-cline/disasters-and-double-standards/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2010 04:26:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew Cline]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Andrew Cline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arizona]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barbara Boxer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cbs news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coast]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[didn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Getty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[getty oil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gordon Getty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gulf]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gulf Coast]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[heir]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[helicopter tour]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[home]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[horizon oil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Katrina]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Los Angeles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mark Knoller]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minerals management service]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Orleans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new orleans after hurricane katrina]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OIL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oil leaks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Orleans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[San Francisco]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secretary Janet Napolitano]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the Gulf]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Minerals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[week]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[york times reports]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=61788</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Where’s the media outrage over Obama's mismanagement of the Gulf Coast crisis?]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/gallery-obamabpspill1.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-medium wp-image-61790" title="gallery-obamabpspill1" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/gallery-obamabpspill1-300x216.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="216" /></a></p>
<p>Remember the big stories in the national media when George W. Bush waited four days to tour New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina hit? Here’s a pop quiz: How long did it take President Obama to visit the Gulf coast after the Deepwater Horizon oil leak began?</p>
<p>The answer is 13 days. Here is how The <em>Washington Post</em> described that visit:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;He flew in and out of New Orleans on May 2, drove two hours to a Coast Guard station and got a briefing before taking a quick helicopter tour. He did not even see the oil slick.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Mark Knoller of CBS News reported last week that in the first 39 days after each respective catastrophe, Obama visited the Gulf coast twice; Bush visited New Orleans seven times. But remember, this is not Obama’s Katrina!</p>
<p>Now imagine if President Bush, five weeks into one of the largest oil leaks in U.S. history, and without ever having seen the slick, jetted across the country to headline a $17,600 per-person fund-raiser at the home of an oil-fortune heir. How do you think the national press would have treated that? Bush didn’t do that, which is why you didn’t hear about it. President Obama did — which is why you didn’t hear about it.</p>
<p>The media covered Obama’s trip to San   Francisco to raise money for Barbara Boxer. Some news outlets even reported that Obama spoke at a private reception at the home of Democratic Party donor Gordon Getty. But few reported that Getty is the heir to the Getty Oil fortune. For instance, the <em>New York Times</em> reports on Obama’s trip never identified Getty as an oil heir. Do you think that would have been omitted had Bush been Getty’s guest?</p>
<p>What if, hours after the head of the U.S. Minerals Management Service left her job over Washington’s mishandling of that giant oil spill, President Bush held a press conference (his first in months) and, when asked about that agency head, could not say whether she had resigned or been fired? What if, hours later, the White House stated that the President knew all along that she had been dismissed, but that story was contradicted by the Cabinet secretary — the one who supposedly did the dismissing — having said that morning during a congressional hearing that she’d resigned voluntarily?</p>
<p>That happened in the Obama administration last week. Where are the outraged cries of incompetence and dishonesty?</p>
<p>Can you imagine the charges of buffoonery that would pour forth from New York, Washington, and Los Angeles, if the George W. Bush administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a state law that had been signed into law by one of Bush’s own cabinet secretaries?</p>
<p>Well, last week the Obama administration did exactly that. The Department of Justice asked the court to overturn a 2007 Arizona immigration law that punishes employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano signed the bill into law when she was Arizona governor.</p>
<p>All of these events were reported in the mainstream media. But they were not reported in the same way they would have been had a Republican been president. The point of this criticism is not to say that Bush was great and Obama stinks. Bush was not a great president. The point is to illustrate the double standard most of the media have.</p>
<p>Media bias exhibits itself in the subtle favoring of liberal politicians and ideas. The same rules don’t apply to the left and the right. The left is presumed to have good intentions, the right bad. So when Bush took four days to get to New Orleans after Katrina hit, it was evidence of racism, elitism, a general lack of concern for the little people. But when it took Obama three times as long to visit the Gulf Coast, there was silence.</p>
<p>When a left-wing administration makes mistakes or contradicts itself, that is simply human nature. When a right-of-center administration does, it is incompetence or duplicity. Or both.</p>
<p>At least some on the left are calling out Obama for his inattentiveness to the Gulf oil spill. That’s no substitute for the press setting the national narrative by holding him to the same standards to which it held Bush. But it’s a start.</p>
<p><em>Andrew Cline is editorial page editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader. Follow him on twitter @Drewhampshire.</em></p>
<p><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/andrew-cline/disasters-and-double-standards/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>74</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The New Way to Fight Terror</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/matt-gurney/the-new-way-to-fight-terror-2/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-new-way-to-fight-terror-2</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/matt-gurney/the-new-way-to-fight-terror-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2010 04:09:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matt Gurney]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Africa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cannot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[command]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[david petraeus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General David Petraeus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General Petraeus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intelligence agencies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intelligence operatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iranian regime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[memo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military strikes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[order]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robert Gates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[September]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[special forces operations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terrorist cells]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Yemen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[York]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=61720</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[America's new intelligence strategy to disrupt terrorist cells and training operations.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/sf-beard-hires.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-medium wp-image-61724" title="sf-beard-hires" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/sf-beard-hires-300x198.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="198" /></a></p>
<p>Last September, General David Petraeus, Commander in Chief of the Central Command, signed a seven-page memo authorizing an increase in American special forces operations across his command. Under the order, which was <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/world/25military.html?hp">reported</a> by the <em>New York Times</em> last week, American special forces would be able to deploy to countries throughout CENTCOM’s area of responsibility (the Middle East and Africa) to “gather intelligence and build ties with local forces.” They would also gather intelligence “that could pave the way for possible military strikes in Iran.” Notably, the order applies to all countries within the region. Many are at least officially friendly to the United   States, but some, notably Syria and the afore-mentioned Iranian regime, are decidedly unfriendly.</p>
<p>The <em>New York Times</em> report makes for fascinating reading and certainly sounds portentous. But it is important to understand exactly what such an order means (to the extent it is possible to understand a classified document that has not been seen by the general public). General Petraeus has not authorized any attacks or disruptive operations by American forces, he lacks the authority to do so; any major operations would require Washington’s approval. But he has made it possible for American military personnel to function as intelligence operatives, infiltrating countries both hostile and friendly, to assess conditions on the ground and work, perhaps in conjunction with local friendly forces, to disrupt terrorist cells and training operations.</p>
<p>These efforts will provide the United   States with valuable human intelligence in areas where the CIA and other intelligence agencies lack significant resources, and will provide details that even the most advanced satellite or drone cannot possibly detect. While deploying American troops secretly into any country will always carry risks, General Petraeus will not be freelancing any unsanctioned invasions, despite some of <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/25/opinion/main6517976.shtml" target="_blank">alarmed reaction</a> the memo has generated.</p>
<p>These assignments will be dangerous, both for the personnel involved and for the United   States politically, but they should still be applauded. Nine years of warfare in Afghanistan, and now seven years in Iraq, have shown how difficult it is to wage war against diffuse terrorist cells linked only by their ideology, with heavy weapons and mass formations of troops designed to do battle with the Cold War-era Soviet  Union. It took a long time after the shocking attacks of September 11<sup>th</sup> for the American military, as powerful as it is, to adjust to the new kind of war, waged not by billion-dollar battalions, but the courage and ingenuity of small units.</p>
<p>Given the current weaknesses in the American economy, such a shift away from the massive deployments of the last ten years was inevitable. America cannot afford to keep fighting <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100502/ap_on_re_us/us_times_square_car_smoke" target="_blank">attempted car bombers</a> with columns of tanks. Once American forces have left Iraq, and after Afghanistan is stable enough to leave (<a href="http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=3063490" target="_blank">if ever</a>), future battles in the war against Islamist extremism will be waged by these clandestine warriors. By infiltrating extremist hotbeds, they will make possible the same kind of targeted killings of enemy leaders that have of late proven so successful in Pakistan and Yemen.</p>
<p>They will not be enough to defeat militant Islamism, but if kept up at a steady pace, will serve to keep it off balance and offer local governments the chance to develop functional, stable societies of the sort less likely to export fanatical suicide bombers to the West. For that reason, this plan — what we know of it — should be commended. It offers the prospects of tangible benefits to the United   States for relatively little risk.</p>
<p>But the risk is real, not just for the soldiers whose lives will be in danger (though we of course must keep them in our thoughts) but due to the temptation to become overly reliant upon these elite teams at the expense of other, more traditional elements of American military strength. Given the enormous financial pressure the United   States finds itself under, and given the tendency thus far of the current White House Administration and Congress to favor social spending, cutbacks to some elements of American military readiness are inevitable. Until America’s fiscal house can be put back in order, that is simply the bleak reality.</p>
<p>But the cuts made today to save money tomorrow will have an enormous impact for decades to come. Ballistic missile defense, as originally envisioned by the administration of George W. Bush, has already been scrapped, and the orders for advanced navy destroyers and F-22 stealth fighters have been slashed. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently got into a <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6460AN20100507" target="_blank">public spat</a> with the Navy over whether or not the United States truly needed 11 aircraft carriers when the rest of the world combined does not have that many. Such debates will undoubtedly become more common in the years ahead, and military leaders and politicians alike must avoid cutting American capabilities too deep on the false assumption that special forces teams can pick up the slack.</p>
<p>To an extent, they can — but only to that extent. Indeed, it is worth noting that the original report on the expanded role for these teams was quite clear that one of their missions is reconnaissance in preparation for a possible American attack against the Iranian nuclear program. That example perfectly illustrates the proper balancing of unconventional special forces and old fashioned heavy firepower. After all, once American special units conducted such preliminary survey missions, it would fall to the Navy and Air Force to blast their way into Iran, destroy their targets, and then deal with the inevitably violent Iranian response.</p>
<p>There is a role for special forces teams in future wars and low-level conflicts, and General Petraeus and the Obama Administration are to be praised for recognizing that. But the best efforts of those brave Americans deployed far from home will be wasted if the United   States does not maintain the striking power to make use of their hard-won information and chooses instead of cut the military too deep to reduce deficits or free up funds for social programs of dubious value.</p>
<p><em>Matt Gurney is an editor at the </em>National Post<em>, a Canadian national newspaper, and writes and speaks on military and geopolitical issues. He can be reached at <a href="mailto:matt@mattgurney.ca" target="_blank">matt@mattgurney.ca</a>. </em></p>
<p><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/matt-gurney/the-new-way-to-fight-terror-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Courageous Restraint?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/alan-w-dowd/courageous-restraint/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=courageous-restraint</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/alan-w-dowd/courageous-restraint/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 May 2010 04:42:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Alan W. Dowd]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[apt metaphor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Berlin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dialogue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enemy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gen. McChrystal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gen. Stonewall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jackson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[missile]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Moscow]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nato allies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nicolas Sarkozy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[North Korea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear non proliferation treaty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear posture review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear test ban]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear test ban treaty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear weap]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear weapon state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear weapons states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[offer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restraint]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robert Gates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[start]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[test ban treaty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States of America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=60779</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A new effort to encourage “self-control” among American troops may get them killed. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/here1.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-60791" title="here" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/here1.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="287" /></a></p>
<p>Hoping to win more hearts and minds in Afghanistan, the U.S. and its NATO allies are planning a commendation to recognize “courageous restraint” among troops in the field. According to a NATO <a href="http://www.isaf.nato.int/en/article/caat-anaysis-news/honoring-courageous-restraint.html">statement</a>, the goal would be to “celebrate the troops who exhibit extraordinary courage and self-control by not using their weapons.”</p>
<p>What an apt metaphor for the Age of Obama. If there is a coherent theme to President Obama’s foreign policy, it seems to be constraining and restraining American power.</p>
<p>Consider the “New START” agreement. From Moscow’s perspective, New <a href="http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/04/30/new_start_vs_missile_defense_is_it_one_or_the_other">START</a> will constrain the U.S. from building and deploying additional missile defenses. New START, according to the Russian interpretation, will “be viable if the United States of America refrains from developing its missile-defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively.”</p>
<p>Where would the Russians get that idea, if not from the administration? And if this is so, then it means the administration is unable to recognize that missile defense is, by definition, defensive. In other words, the goal of missile defense is to constrain America’s enemies.</p>
<p>Then there’s the related issue of the Obama administration’s Nuclear Posture Review (<a href="http://www.defense.gov/NPR/docs/NPR%20FACT%20SHEET%20April%202010.pdf">NPR</a>), which is all about constraining the United States. Among other things, the NPR pledges that the United States:</p>
<blockquote><p>• <em>Will not conduct nuclear testing, and will seek ratification and entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty</em>,</p>
<p>• <em>will not develop new nuclear warheads</em>, and</p>
<p>•<em> will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations.</em></p></blockquote>
<p>Obama’s NPR also removes the protection afforded by what Defense Secretary Robert <a href="http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4599">Gates</a> calls “calculated ambiguity.” “If a non-nuclear-weapon state is in compliance with the nonproliferation treaty and its obligations,” Gates explains, “the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it.” Instead, such an enemy “would face the prospect of a devastating conventional military response”—even if that enemy “were to use chemical or biological weapons against the United States or its allies or partners.”</p>
<p>“Calculated ambiguity” has kept America’s enemies on notice and off balance for decades—and, not coincidentally, has kept America and American forces safe from nuclear, biological or chemical attack. As Eisenhower counseled at the beginning of the nuclear age, quoting Gen. Stonewall Jackson, “Always surprise, mystify and mislead the enemy.”</p>
<p>Obama clearly doesn’t subscribe to that commonsense view. In fact, he recently took a huge step in the opposite direction by <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/0504/NPT-Obama-reveals-size-of-US-nuclear-weapons-arsenal.-Will-Russia-respond">revealing</a> the size of America’s nuclear arsenal.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the likes of North Korea and Iran play games with the world—and appear to be under no constraints whatsoever.  For instance, in the past 12 months, North Korea has detonated a nuclear weapon, test-fired long-range missiles and blown a South Korean ship out of the water, killing 46 sailors.</p>
<p>Likewise, Iran has shown no restraint in response to Washington’s restraint. Last summer, as the Iranian people rose up against a sham election and as Ahmadinejad’s henchmen crushed the popular revolt, the President was virtually silent. The sad irony of the President’s restrained reaction to the Twitter Revolution was that it answered his own rhetorical <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/us/politics/24text-obama.html?pagewanted=all">question</a> of a year before, albeit in a manner his supporters would never have imagined. “Will we stand for the human rights of…the blogger in Iran?” he asked during his 2008 rock-concert speech in Berlin. Last summer provided the answer.</p>
<p>And it gets worse. When evidence of a secret Iranian nuclear-fuel plant came to light last autumn, there was no reaction from the White House. In fact, it was French president Nicolas <a href="http://ambafrance-us.org/spip.php?article1432">Sarkozy</a> who spoke up: “Since 2005, Iran has violated five Security Council resolutions…An offer of dialogue was made in 2005, an offer of dialogue was made in 2006, an offer of dialogue was made in 2007, an offer of dialogue was made in 2008, and another one was made in 2009…What did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing.”</p>
<p>Perhaps nowhere is the policy of restraint and constraint on better display than in Afghanistan itself. German forces, for instance, refer to a seven-page <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6730996.ece">guidebook</a> before engaging the enemy. Until mid-2009, they were even required to shout warnings to enemy forces—in three languages—before opening fire. The joys of coalition warfare.</p>
<p>The president has told us, over and over, that Afghanistan is a “war of necessity.” It was so important, as the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/world/asia/11command.html">New York Times</a> reported, that the president gave his military commander “extraordinary leeway” and “carte blanche” control to choose “a dream team of subordinates.”</p>
<p>But when Gen. McChrystal asked for the resources necessary to win this war of necessity, the president balked. Then, after a lengthy re-review of his own policy, the president concluded that “it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan,” before <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/01/new-way-forward-presidents-address">promising</a> that “after 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.”</p>
<p>Of course, vital national interests don’t have expiration dates, and letting the Taliban know when the U.S. military will end its offensive won’t make victory any easier to achieve. But victory is probably not the goal in this era of constraint and restraint. As the constrainer-in-chief <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/23/nightline_interview_with_president_obama_transcript_97608.html">himself</a> puts it, “I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory.’”</p>
<p>That brings us back to NATO’s “courageous restraint” idea.</p>
<p>The notion that there needs to be a commendation for restraint is based on the false and faulty premise that U.S. forces haven’t used restraint to date. In fact, as Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis told Navy Times, “Our young men and women display remarkable courage every day, including situations where they refrain from using lethal force, even at risk to themselves, in order to prevent possible harm to civilians.”</p>
<p>Indeed, the U.S. military is so self-restrained that the world doesn’t even notice. Just think about what happens when the U.S. military makes what we civilians, from 7,000 miles away, call a mistake: It court-martials people, changes target sets, scrubs missions, orders bombing pauses, investigates, apologizes and invests in ever-more precise weapons to prevent mistakes.</p>
<p>The fact is, the American military of today is the most lethal force in history, which makes its self-restraint so impressive. U.S. forces could flatten Kandahar, kill anything that moves in Waziristan, erase all the Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden and all the terror camps in Syria, eliminate the North Korean and Iranian thugocracies, and turn Mosul into glass—all in less than 24 hours. But they don’t do those things. The reason? Thankfully, the means are as important as the ends to Americans and their military.</p>
<p>This is not an argument for shooting first and asking questions later or for countenancing battlefield brutality. Rather, it’s a reminder that U.S. forces in Afghanistan are already holding their fire enough. They already think twice before squeezing the trigger. We shouldn’t expect them to think three times.</p>
<p>The people who know best—those who have served—worry about the unintended consequences of rewarding and thereby encouraging “courageous restraint.” As Clarence Hill, national commander of the American Legion, observes, “Too much restraint will get our own people killed.”</p>
<p>Veterans of Foreign Wars spokesman Joe Davis adds, ominously and presciently, “The creation of such an award will only…put more American and noncombatant lives in jeopardy. Let’s not rush to create something that no one wants to present posthumously.”</p>
<p><strong><em>Alan W. Dowd writes on defense and security issues.</em></strong></p>
<p><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/alan-w-dowd/courageous-restraint/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>50</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Joel Rogers: Marxist Mastermind of the &#8220;Green Economy&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2460&#038;utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=joel-rogers-marxist-mastermind-of-the-green-economy</link>
		<comments>http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2460#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 May 2010 18:21:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Discover The Networks]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[DTN Profiles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coalition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Daniel Cantor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joel Rogers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[partner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rogers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Van Jones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[White]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[working]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[year]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=60177</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[  In 1992, Joel Rogers co-founded the New Party, a Marxist coalition that endorsed and helped elect left-wing political candidates; one of its most noteworthy members in the mid-1990s was Barack Obama. After the New Party closed its doors in 1997, it was reinvented the following year by Joel Rogers’ partner, Daniel Cantor, as the Working Families Party, which became a powerful front group for ACORN. Rogers [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> <a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/joel_rogers1.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-60180" title="joel_rogers" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/joel_rogers1.jpg" alt="" width="200" height="217" /></a></p>
<p>In 1992, Joel Rogers co-founded the <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434">New Party</a>, a Marxist coalition that endorsed and helped elect left-wing political candidates; one of its most noteworthy <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/10/021724.php">members</a> in the mid-1990s was Barack Obama. After the New Party closed its doors in 1997, it was reinvented the following year by Joel Rogers’ partner, Daniel Cantor, as the <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6965">Working Families Party</a>, which became a powerful front group for <a href="http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6968">ACORN</a>. Rogers has been lauded by <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/individualProfile.asp?indid=2406">Van Jones</a>, <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/individualProfile.asp?indid=1511">President Obama</a>’s disgraced “green czar” and now a member of the <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6709">Center for American Progress</a>. Jones <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b84fGcs-byQ">has praised</a> Rogers’ “extraordinary set of achievements,” including the creation of “an economic model” that is “now reflected in the White House”; a “new politics” &#8212; based upon the <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434">New Party</a> and the <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6965">Working Families Party</a> &#8212; that represent “the basic framework for what just took over the White House [when Obama was elected]”; and “a new energy paradigm” as outlined by the <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7490">Apollo Alliance</a>, an organization Rogers helped create, and on whose board Van Jones sat.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2460">To view the full Joel Rogers profile, click here.</a></strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2460/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Joel Rogers: Original Mastermind of the &#8220;Green Economy&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/discover-the-networks/joel-rogers-original-mastermind-of-the-green-economy/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=joel-rogers-original-mastermind-of-the-green-economy</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/discover-the-networks/joel-rogers-original-mastermind-of-the-green-economy/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 May 2010 16:42:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Discover The Networks]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[DTN Profiles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coalition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Daniel Cantor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[energy paradigm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[front group]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joel Rogers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mainstream]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mid 1990s]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minnesota]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[noteworthy members]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[partner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rogers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rogers co]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[thecenter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Van Jones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[White]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[working]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[working families party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[year]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=59525</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In 1992, Joel Rogers co-founded the New Party, a Marxist coalition that endorsed and helped elect left-wing political candidates; one of its most noteworthy members in the mid-1990s was Barack Obama. After the New Party closed its doors in 1997, it was reinvented the following year by Joel Rogers’ partner, Daniel Cantor, as the Working Families Party, which became a powerful front group for ACORN. Rogers has [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/joel_rogers.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-59529" title="joel_rogers" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/joel_rogers.jpg" alt="" width="200" height="217" /></a></p>
<p>In 1992, Joel Rogers co-founded the <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434">New Party</a>, a Marxist coalition that endorsed and helped elect left-wing political candidates; one of its most noteworthy <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/10/021724.php">members</a> in the mid-1990s was Barack Obama. After the New Party closed its doors in 1997, it was reinvented the following year by Joel Rogers’ partner, Daniel Cantor, as the <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6965">Working Families Party</a>, which became a powerful front group for <a href="http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6968">ACORN</a>.</p>
<p>Rogers has been lauded by <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/individualProfile.asp?indid=2406">Van Jones</a>, <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/individualProfile.asp?indid=1511">President Obama</a>’s disgraced “green czar” and now a member of the <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6709">Center for American Progress</a>. Jones <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b84fGcs-byQ">has praised</a> Rogers’ “extraordinary set of achievements,” including the creation of “an economic model” that is “now reflected in the White House”; a “new politics” &#8212; based upon the <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434">New Party</a> and the <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6965">Working Families Party</a> &#8212; that represent “the basic framework for what just took over the White House [when Obama was elected]”; and “a new energy paradigm” as outlined by the <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7490">Apollo Alliance</a>, an organization Rogers helped create, and on whose board Van Jones sat.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2460">To view the full Joel Rogers profile, click here.</a></strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/discover-the-networks/joel-rogers-original-mastermind-of-the-green-economy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Praising Arizona</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/heather-macdonald/praising-arizona/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=praising-arizona</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/heather-macdonald/praising-arizona/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 May 2010 04:05:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Heather MacDonald]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arizona]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arizona law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[city]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editorial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[illegal immigrant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[illegality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Immigration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[immigration documents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[immigration enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[immigration papers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[immigration status]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal immigrants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legislative language]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[officer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[person]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Police]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[racial separation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[screed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[status]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Times]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=59480</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The state’s new immigration law is perfectly reasonable, but you wouldn’t know it from the New York Times.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="story_text">
<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Arizona.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-59495" title="Arizona" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Arizona.jpg" alt="" width="375" height="279" /></a></p>
<p><strong>This article is reprinted from <a href="http://www.city-journal.org/">City Journal</a></strong></p>
<p>Supporters of Arizona’s new law strengthening immigration enforcement in the state should take heart from today’s <em>New York Times</em> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/opinion/30fri1.html" target="display">editorial</a> blasting it. “Stopping Arizona” contains so many blatant falsehoods that a reader can be fully confident that the law as actually written is a reasonable, lawful response to a pressing problem. Only by distorting the law’s provisions can the <em>Times</em> and the law’s many other critics make it out to be a racist assault on fundamental American rights.</p>
<p>The law, SB 1070, empowers local police officers to check the immigration status of individuals whom they have encountered during a “lawful contact,” if an officer reasonably suspects the person stopped of being in the country illegally, and if an inquiry into the person’s status is “practicable.” The officer may not base his suspicion of illegality “solely [on] race, color or national origin.” (Arizona lawmakers <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/in-response-to-critics-arizona-tweaks-new-immigration-law-92495249.html" target="display">recently amended</a> the law to change the term “lawful contact” to “lawful stop, detention or arrest” and deleted the word “solely” from the phrase regarding race, color, and national origin. The governor is expected to sign the amendments.) The law also requires aliens to carry their immigration documents, mirroring an identical federal requirement. Failure to comply with the federal law on carrying immigration papers becomes a state misdemeanor under the Arizona law.</p>
<p>Good luck finding any of these provisions in the <em>Times</em>’s editorial. Leave aside for the moment the sweeping conclusions with which the <em>Times</em> begins its screed—such gems as the charge that the law “turns all of the state’s Latinos, even legal immigrants and citizens, into criminal suspects” and is an act of “racial separation.” Instead, let’s see how the <em>Times</em> characterizes the specific legislative language, which is presumably the basis for its indictment.</p>
<p>The paper alleges that the “statute requires police officers to stop and question anyone who looks like an illegal immigrant.” False. The law gives an officer the discretion, when practicable, to determine someone’s immigration status only after the officer has otherwise made a lawful stop, detention, or arrest. It does not allow, much less require, fishing expeditions for illegal aliens. But if, say, after having stopped someone for running a red light, an officer discovers that the driver does not have a driver’s license, does not speak English, and has no other government identification on him, the officer may, if practicable, send an inquiry to his dispatcher to check the driver’s status with a federal immigration clearinghouse.</p>
<p>The <em>Times</em> then alleges that the law “empower[s] police officers to stop anyone they choose and demand to see papers.” False again, for the reasons stated above. An officer must have a lawful, independent basis for a stop; he can only ask to see papers if he has “reasonable suspicion” to believe that the person is in the country illegally. “Reasonable suspicion” is a legal concept of long-standing validity, rooted in the Constitution’s prohibition of “unreasonable searches and seizures.” It meaningfully constrains police activity; officers are trained in its contours, which have evolved through common-law precedents, as a matter of course. If the <em>New York Times</em> now thinks that the concept is insufficient as a check on police power, it will have to persuade every court and every law enforcement agency in the country to throw out the phrase—and the Constitution with it—and come up with something that suits the <em>Times</em>’s contempt for police power.</p>
<p>On broader legal issues, the <em>Times</em> is just as misleading. The paper alleges that the “Supreme Court has consistently ruled that states cannot make their own immigration laws.” Actually, the law on preemption is almost impossibly murky. As the <em>Times</em> later notes in its editorial, the Justice Department ruled in 2002, after surveying the relevant Supreme Court and appellate precedents, that “state and local police had ‘inherent authority’ to make immigration arrests.” The paper does not like that conclusion, but it has not been revoked as official legal advice. If states have inherent authority to make immigration arrests, they can certainly do so under a state law that merely tracks the federal law requiring that immigrants carry documentation.</p>
<p>The <em>Times</em> tips its hand at the end of the editorial. It calls for the Obama administration to end a program that trains local law enforcement officials in relevant aspects of immigration law and that deputizes them to act as full-fledged immigration agents. The so-called 287(g) program acts as a “force multiplier,” as the <em>Times</em> points out, adding local resources to immigration law enforcement—just as Arizona’s SB 1070 does. At heart, this force-multiplier effect is what the hysteria over Arizona’s law is all about: SB 1070 ups the chances that an illegal alien will actually be detected and—horror of horrors—deported. The illegal-alien lobby, of which the <em>New York Times</em> is a charter member, does not believe that U.S. immigration laws should be enforced. Usually unwilling for political reasons to say so explicitly, the lobby comes up with smoke screens—such as the <em>Times</em>’s demagogic charges about SB 1070 as an act of “racial separation”—to divert attention from the underlying issue. Playing the race card is the tactic of those unwilling to make arguments on the merits. (The <em>Times</em>’s other contribution today to the prevailing de facto amnesty for illegal aliens was to fail to disclose, in an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/nyregion/30newark.html?ref=nyregion" target="display">article</a> about a brutal 2007 schoolyard execution in Newark, that the suspected leader was an illegal <a href="http://www.voiac.org/victims.php?id=373" target="display">alien</a> and member of the predominantly illegal-alien gang Mara Salvatrucha.)</p>
<p>The Arizona law is not about race; it’s not an attack on Latinos or legal immigrants. It’s about one thing and one thing only: making immigration enforcement a reality. It is time for a national debate: Do we or don’t we want to enforce the country’s immigration laws? If the answer is yes, the Arizona law is a necessary and lawful tool for doing so. If the answer is no, we should end the charade of inadequate, half-hearted enforcement, enact an amnesty now, and remove future penalties for immigration violations.</p>
<p><em>Heather Mac Donald is a contributing editor of </em>City Journal<em>, the John M. Olin Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and the coauthor of </em><a href="http://www.manhattan-institute.org/immigration_solution/" target="display">The Immigration Solution: A Better Plan Than Today’s</a>.</p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/heather-macdonald/praising-arizona/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>17</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Jews Who Cheapen the Holocaust</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/dennis-prager/jews-who-cheapen-the-holocaust-2/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=jews-who-cheapen-the-holocaust-2</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/dennis-prager/jews-who-cheapen-the-holocaust-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 May 2010 04:00:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dennis Prager]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Annie Hall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anti semites]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arizona]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Christian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fla.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Frank Rich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[group]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Holocaust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Illegal Immigration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jew]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liberal jews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[linda greenhouse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[literal sense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mass murderers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mexico]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[party banners]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public personality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rep. Alan Grayson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rhetoric]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roger Mahony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rush Limbaugh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Same sex marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[soup nazi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Woody Allen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[York]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=59489</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why would a Jewish New York Times columnist use the term "Kristallnacht" when talking about American tea partiers?]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/frank-rich112.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-medium wp-image-59491" title="frank-rich112" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/frank-rich112-216x300.jpg" alt="" width="216" height="300" /></a></p>
<p>If there is any group that should know the uniqueness of Nazi evil and should not want the evil of the Holocaust cheapened for political purposes, it is the Jews. Yet, there is at least a 50-50 chance that if you read or hear a public personality use Nazi imagery to describe conservatives, the person is a Jew. Specifically, a Jew on the Left.</p>
<p>Of course, non-Jews on the Left also compare conservatives to Nazis, and some non-Jews on the Right will sometimes compare the Left to Nazis, but there are three important differences.</p>
<p>First, however many or few tea party banners compare President Obama to Hitler (and such comparisons are as reprehensible as they are self-defeating), conservative public figures &#8212; such as politicians and prominent columnists &#8212; almost never compare liberals to Nazis, while public figures on the Left often compare conservatives to Nazis.</p>
<p>Second, among liberal Jews, the percentage that believes that Americans on the Right are just a step or two away from being Nazis seems to be greater than the proportion of liberal non-Jews who believe that.</p>
<p>Third, when Jews on the Left call conservative Americans Nazis, they mean it in its literal sense &#8212; they really do regard the conservatives they compare to Nazis as racists comparable to Nazi anti-Semites. On the other hand, when conservatives use the term, it is meant to signify non-democratic or dictatorial policies, regimes or individuals &#8212; e.g., Seinfeld&#8217;s &#8220;soup Nazi&#8221; or Rush Limbaugh&#8217;s &#8220;feminazis&#8221; &#8212; not as potential or likely mass murderers.</p>
<p>Why is this? Why do so many Jews see conservative/Right-wing Americans as Nazi-like?</p>
<p>The answer lies in the rhetoric of the Left and in Jews&#8217; fears.</p>
<p>Leftist rhetoric routinely depicts opponents of the Left in extreme terms. Opponents of race-based affirmative action are racists. Opponents of same-sex marriage are homophobes. Opponents of illegal immigration are xenophobes, racists and engaged in Nazism (that is the word that Cardinal Roger Mahony used to describe Arizona&#8217;s anti-illegal immigration law). And so on.</p>
<p>But there is an additional explanation for why liberal and Leftist Jews use &#8220;Nazi&#8221; and &#8220;Holocaust&#8221; rhetoric to depict conservatives.</p>
<p>Jews, Right or Left, have been seared by the Holocaust. And most, if not all, believe a Holocaust could happen again &#8212; hardly an idiosyncratic belief given Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad&#8217;s declared aim of annihilating the Jewish state.</p>
<p>Where liberal and conservative Jews differ is where each group thinks the greatest danger to the Jews lies. Jews on the Left are certain that the greatest threats to Jews come from the Right. Conservative and centrist Jews believe that dangers to the Jews can come from the Left, from the Right, from Islam, from a renewal of Christian anti-Semitism, indeed from anywhere, but that at this moment, the world&#8217;s Left is far more an enemy of the Jewish people than the world&#8217;s, not to mention America&#8217;s, Right.</p>
<p>When liberal Jewish columnist Frank Rich of The New York Times wrote recently that tea partiers had engaged a &#8220;small-scale mimicry of Kristallnacht,&#8221; he meant it. Kristallnacht (&#8220;Night of the Broken Glass&#8221;) is widely considered the opening act of the Holocaust. In November 1938, in the course of two days, tens of thousands of German Jews were arrested and deported to concentration camps; scores of Jews were beaten to death; 267 synagogues were destroyed; and thousands of Jewish-owned businesses were vandalized.</p>
<p>Why would a New York Times columnist use the term when talking about American tea partiers?</p>
<p>Because when Rich and most other Jews on the Left see Right-wing non-Jews, they see swastikas. It is an inversion of the famous scene in Woody Allen&#8217;s film &#8220;Annie Hall&#8221; in which the WASP character is depicted as seeing the Woody Allen character as a Hasidic Jew. Most American Jews on the Left &#8212; like Leftist professors on college campuses &#8212; inhabit an insular universe, where regular, let alone intimate, contact with conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, is almost non-existent.</p>
<p>Last week, another Jewish liberal, Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., in attacking the tea partiers, specified &#8220;white Christians&#8221; as people who fear members of all other religious and racial groups. And this past September, Grayson, referring to Congress not having passed health care legislation, said on the floor of Congress, &#8220;I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven&#8217;t voted sooner to end this Holocaust in America.&#8221; In Grayson&#8217;s view, 12 percent of Americans not having health insurance constitutes a &#8220;Holocaust.&#8221;</p>
<p>Another liberal Jewish commentator for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse, who teaches at Yale Law School, likened the situation of illegal immigrants in Arizona to that of the Jews of Nazi-occupied Denmark. As if being deported to Mexico for illegally entering Arizona is comparable to being sent to Auschwitz for being a Danish Jew.</p>
<p>The liberal Jewish former-columnist of the Boston Globe, Ellen Goodman, wrote in 2007, &#8220;Let&#8217;s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers &#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>Another Jew on the Left, George Soros, said at the Davos conference in 2007, &#8220;America needs to follow the policies it has introduced in Germany. We have to go through a certain de-Nazification process.&#8221; As Martin Peretz wrote at the time in The New Republic: &#8220;He believes that the United States is now a Nazi country. Why else would we have to go through a &#8216;certain de-Nazification process&#8217;? I defy anybody to interpret the remark differently.&#8221;</p>
<p>And Seth Meyers of &#8220;Saturday Night Live&#8221; asked, referring to the new Arizona law, &#8220;Could we all agree that there&#8217;s nothing more Nazi than saying &#8216;Show me your papers&#8217;?&#8221;</p>
<p>These are only a few examples.</p>
<p>Jews who compare conservative Americans &#8212; tea partiers, global-warming skeptics, supporters of Arizona&#8217;s illegal-immigrant law, former President George W. Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney, conservative Christians &#8212; to Nazis and the Holocaust not only smear decent Americans &#8212; who, as it happens, are far more pro-Jewish and pro-Israel than most Americans on the Left &#8212; they also cheapen the horror of Nazism and the Holocaust.</p>
<p>But in the closed world of the Left generally and of the Jewish Left specifically, there is an Auschwitz under almost every conservative bed.</p>
<p>As a Jew who has devoted much of his life to fighting anti-Semitism &#8212; from being sent by Israel to the former Soviet Union to aid Soviet Jews, to writing a book on anti-Semitism (&#8220;Why the Jews? The Reason for Antisemitism&#8221;), to serving on the board of directors of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum &#8212; I have always found any trivialization of Nazism and the Holocaust offensive. That Jews would do this &#8212; to fellow Americans, no less &#8212; and solely in order to serve their Left-wing politics is worse than offensive. It is immoral.</p>
<p>Dennis Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show and is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He is the author of four books, most recently &#8220;Happiness Is a Serious Problem&#8221; (HarperCollins.) His website is <a href="http://www.dennisprager.com/" target="_blank">www.dennisprager.com</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/dennis-prager/jews-who-cheapen-the-holocaust-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>20</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Smearing Arizona</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/joseph-klein/smearing-arizona/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=smearing-arizona</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/joseph-klein/smearing-arizona/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2010 04:03:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Klein]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anyone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arizona]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arizona law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[illegal immigrant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Illegal Immigration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Immigration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[imprisonment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal basis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[officer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Police]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[police harassment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[police-officers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reasonable suspicion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Suspicion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=59307</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The New York Times lies about Arizona and endorses illegal immigration.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.newsrealblog.com/"><strong><strong> </strong></strong></a><strong><strong><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/image6434102_370x278.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-medium wp-image-59308" title="image6434102_370x278" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/image6434102_370x278-300x225.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="225" /></a></strong></strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.newsrealblog.com/"><strong>Visit NewsRealBlog</strong></a></p>
<p>The <em>New York Times</em><strong><em> </em></strong>has hit a new low today in its lead editorial, entitled “Stopping Arizona.”  The<em> Times</em> maliciously misrepresented <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1215" target="_self">Arizona’s new law </a>, intended to combat the ravages within its borders caused by illegal immigration.  The <em>Times</em>‘ lies are typical of the race-baiting tactics employed by the <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?catid=93&amp;type=issue" target="_self">progressive left</a>.</p>
<p>For example, the <em>Times</em> falsely claimed:</p>
<blockquote><p>The statute requires police officers to stop and question anyone who looks like an illegal immigrant.</p></blockquote>
<p>The truth is precisely the opposite.  The new law does not empower local law enforcement officers to pick up anyone they wish who looks like he or she doesn’t belong in this country.  It requires first that the officer have a separate legal basis for coming into “lawful contact” with the individual, such as a speeding violation.  Then – and only if the officer has “reasonable suspicion” that this individual may be in the country illegally –  can the officer ask to see the individual’s documents which <em>federal</em> law requires aliens residing in this country to carry with them at all times.</p>
<p>“Reasonable suspicion” is a court-defined standard, not a broad mandate for police harassment based on a person’s appearance.  The Arizona statute provides specific guidelines to govern law enforcement officers, including a list of documents such as an Arizona driver’s license which an officer must presume is sufficient proof that someone producing such a document is legally in the country.</p>
<p>Maybe the <em>Times </em>and other critics of the “reasonable suspicion” standard – including President Obama for that matter – should read the federal law stating that if an alien is encountered and they are not carrying ID they are in fact in violation of the law <a href="http://law.onecle.com/uscode/8/1304.html" target="_self">(8 USC 1304 (e)) </a>and subject to fine or imprisonment.  The Arizona law is designed to aid in enforcement of this federal requirement, including requiring police officers to contact the federal government as soon as practicable when they suspect a person is an illegal alien.</p>
<p>To make sure that the new law will not be used as a justification for racial profiling, it provides that a law enforcement official, in making any stops and subsequent inquiries into immigration status:</p>
<blockquote><p>may not solely consider race, color or national origin</p></blockquote>
<p>The Arizona law also requires that it</p>
<blockquote><p>be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.</p></blockquote>
<p><em>The New York Times</em> shares an underlying progressive agenda of <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?catId=6&amp;type=group" target="_self">open borders </a>with a coalition of radical groups spearheaded by such entities as the National Lawyers Guild, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6156" target="_self">Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund</a>, and the American Civil Liberties Union.<em> </em></p>
<p>For example, the <em>Times</em> goes so far as to criticize another Arizona law, now before the Supreme Court, that revokes the business licenses of employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.  The <em>Times </em>evidently does not care about the near slave labor conditions that some illegal aliens are trapped in by exploitative employers.  Anything that might get in the way of the open borders philosophy is a no-no to the progressive crowd.</p>
<p>At the end of its editorial, the <em>Times </em>asks rhetorically:</p>
<blockquote><p>Is our core belief still the welcome and assimimilation of newcomers?</p></blockquote>
<p>The answer can still be yes while maintaining the rule of law.  It has never been the core belief of this country that anyone from anywhere in the world is entitled as a matter of right to enter this country whenever and however they want without following the rules for lawful entry and residence.</p>
<p><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /></p>
<p><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /><input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/joseph-klein/smearing-arizona/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>22</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Solidarity with Israel</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/fern-sidman/solidarity-for-israel/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=solidarity-for-israel</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/fern-sidman/solidarity-for-israel/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 04:01:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Fern Sidman]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[activist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[activist organization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american jewish congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anger]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[b nai brith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Beth Gilinsky]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brooklyn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chief strategist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Christian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coalition for jewish concerns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jackie Donney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jerusalem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jerusalem reclamation project]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jewish]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jewish action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jewish holocaust survivors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lodz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Organization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paris]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rabbi Joseph Rosenbluh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rabbi Yaakov Spivak]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rally]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rev. Jeremiah Wright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rev. Michael Faulkner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Samaria]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secretary of State Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Steve Malzberg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stop]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Torah]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united jewish appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vandeveer Park]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[world jewish congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[York City]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Z]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=58903</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thousands gather in New York City to stand with the Jewish State.   ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Curtis.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-58917" title="Curtis" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Curtis.jpg" alt="" width="375" height="353" /></a></p>
<p>&#8220;Obama &#8211; Stop Pressuring Israel&#8221; was the rallying cry of the day, as over 2000 supporters of Israel gathered in front of the Israeli Consulate in New York City on Sunday afternoon, April 25th to express their views on the current strain in relations between the United States and Israel. Organizers of the rally had expected thousands more to attend but the inclement weather kept many away.</p>
<p>The rally was sponsored and organized by the Jewish Action Alliance, a pro-Israel activist organization that is renowned for championing issues of Jewish security. Beth Gilinsky, the spokesperson and chief strategist of the Jewish Action Alliance said, &#8220;We are outraged that President Obama is scapegoating Israel and wants to expel Jews from their homes in Jerusalem. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton display more anger about a Jewish family building a home in Jerusalem than Iran building a nuclear bomb.&#8221; Expressing the sentiments of those in attendance at the rally, she said, &#8220;Vast segments of the Jewish community will not tolerate the President&#8217;s continuing attacks on Israel. Grassroots Jewry will not be silent.&#8221;</p>
<p>Noticeably absent from the lengthy roster of organizations endorsing this rally were the major American establishment Jewish organizations such as the World Jewish Congress, the ADL of B&#8217;nai Brith, the American Jewish Congress and the United Jewish Appeal. It has been suggested that these liberal Jewish organizations are supportive of President Obama&#8217;s agenda in the Middle East and don&#8217;t want to damage their relations with the current administration.  Amongst the plethora of organizations endorsing and participating in the rally were Stand With Us, a college campus activist organization that spotlights hate speech against Israel, Christians and Jews United for Israel, Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, Artists 4 Israel, Z Street, The Jerusalem Reclamation Project, The Center For Defense of Democracies, the AISH Center, AMCHA &#8212; Coalition for Jewish Concerns, The Jewish Political Education Foundation and the Endowment for Middle East Truth.</p>
<p>Radio talk show host Steve Malzberg and columnist Rabbi Aryeh Spero served as the masters of ceremony as they introduced a litany of speakers representing a broad spectrum of both Jewish and non-Jewish support for Israel.  Rabbi Yaakov Spivak of Monsey, NY, a longtime Jewish activist, radio talk show host and a Daily News columnist intoned, &#8220;President Obama, we&#8217;re here today to tell you something. In Warsaw, they told Jews where we could build, in Lodz they told Jews where we could build, in Paris they told Jews where we could build. You will never tell us where to build in Jerusalem. We are home and Israel is our country. You are not our landlord and we are neither a vassal state nor a banana republic. Our mandate to be here today is none other than our holy Tanach, our bible which says, &#8216;For the sake of Zion I will not be silent and for the sake of Jerusalem I will not be quiet.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;The Jewish people are G-d&#8217;s chosen people&#8221; said Rev. Michael Faulkner, an African American minister representing the New Horizon Church. &#8220;I remind those in the Obama administration that those who bless the Jewish people will be blessed and those who curse the Jewish people will be cursed. Israel is the only stable, democratic ally in the Middle East and this relationship must be preserved and protected. The strength of the land of Israel and the Jewish people lies with their G-d and I call upon all Jews to return to the mandate of the Almighty G-d of Israel and His holy Torah&#8221; he said.</p>
<p>Holding aloft signs saying, &#8220;Jerusalem: Israel&#8217;s United and Eternal Capitol,&#8221; &#8220;Hillary Clinton: Pressure Iran, Not Israel,&#8221; &#8220;Obama: Stand Up for America, Stop Bowing to Saudi Kings!&#8221; and &#8220;Obama: Jews Will Not Be Silent,&#8221; the rally participants passionately expressed their anger at the shift in US foreign policy as it pertains to Israel. Jackie Donney, 55, a Christian supporter of Israel who traveled from Newton, Pennsylvania to attend the rally said, &#8220;Look, we all know the background of Barack Obama. He is a disciple of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, one of the greatest haters of Israel and America. I think it is downright sinful that Obama has placed such tremendous pressure on Israel to make major territorial concessions in the name of a false peace. The Palestinian government is an Iranian proxy and such is bent on the destruction of Israel and the Western world. Just look what happened when Israel forcibly evicted Jews from Gush Katif. It didn&#8217;t bring peace and now the US is demanding that Israel relinquish parts of Jerusalem and all of Judea and Samaria. I say, &#8216;Never, Never, Never.&#8217;&#8221;</p>
<p>Another rally attendee, Rabbi Joseph Rosenbluh of the Young Israel of Vandeveer Park in Brooklyn said, &#8220;In our Tehillim (the Book of Psalms), we learn that our ultimate salvation lies with our Almighty G-d. It is up to all Jews to ferociously cleave to Hashem (G-d), to walk in His ways and to follow His commandments. In every generation we find that there is no shortage of Jew haters and other miscreants who seek our destruction. There is a new Pharoah in town (Obama) who does not know Joseph (the Jewish people) and we comprehend from our history that G-d will deal with our enemies if only we acknowledge His majesty and glory.&#8221;</p>
<p>A formidable contingent of Hindu and Sikh supporters of Israel was also present at the rally. &#8220;We understand all too well that a policy of appeasement towards Islamic radicalism will never bring peace to Israel or the civilized world,” declared Satya Dosapati of the Hindu Human Rights Watch.&#8221; As Hindus, we have been massacred by Muslims for thousands of years. If President Obama really believes that isolating and demonizing Israel and publicly humiliating Israel&#8217;s Prime Minister is not emboldening our Islamic enemies, then something is really wrong. Israel is a peace seeking nation and we unequivocally support their right to their homeland. The world must realize that if Israel falls then the entire world will come under the domination of a blood thirsty Islamic caliphate,&#8221; he continued.</p>
<p>Meir Rosenblatt, of Passaic, New Jersey said, &#8220;At the most recent AIPAC convention, Secretary Clinton said that Israel must relinquish Judea and Samaria in order to maintain both a democratic and Jewish state. It is clear that Israel is sitting on a demographic time bomb that is all too real. 20 years ago there were only two Arab members of Knesset and now there are 10. The Arab birthrate is skyrocketing while the Jewish birthrate is not. There is no educated Jew that can honestly say we weren&#8217;t warned that this would happen. Rabbi Meir Kahane, of blessed memory spoke of this back in the late 1970s and everyone called him a racist and a fascist because they didn&#8217;t want to hear the painful truth. Now we have boxed ourselves in a corner because we didn&#8217;t listen to his prescient message.&#8221;</p>
<p>Helen Freedman of Americans for a Safe Israel said, &#8220;There is no way to establish peace with those who call for your destruction on a daily basis. That is exactly what the Palestinian propaganda campaign is all about. Lies, half-truths and distortions. AFSI is promoting the idea of &#8220;Shalom&#8221; (peace) through the concept of &#8220;Shalem&#8221; (a whole Israel.) There can only be peace through strength and security. When the Arabs realized that they could not prevail against Israel militarily, they embarked on a course of diplomatic destruction and we are here to speak truth to the canards that they espouse.&#8221;</p>
<p>Other speakers included Joan Peters, author of the critically acclaimed book, &#8220;Of Time Immemorial,&#8221; Mort Klein of the Zionist Organization of America, Dr. Herbert London of The Hudson Institute, New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind who represents the 48th assembly district in Brooklyn and a stalwart Jewish activist and supporter of Israel, radio talk show host Curtis Sliwa and founder of the Guardian Angels, Faith McDonnell of the Institute for Religion and Democracy, Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs, Joy Brighton of Stop Shariah Now, Rabbi David Algaze of the World Committee for the Land of Israel, Tamar Edelstein of Crown Heights Women, Bhupinder Bhurji of the Naamdari Sikh Foundation, Lori Lowenthal Marcus of Z Street, State Senator Reuben Diaz, Susan Cohen of the Republican Jewish Coalition, Mallory Danaher of the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Narain Katarian of the Hindu Human Rights Watch.</p>
<p><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /><input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/fern-sidman/solidarity-for-israel/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Celebrating the Iranian New Year</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/lisa-daftari/celebrating-the-iranian-new-year/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=celebrating-the-iranian-new-year</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/lisa-daftari/celebrating-the-iranian-new-year/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Apr 2010 04:05:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lisa Daftari]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alex Helmi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Amir]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[celebration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[city blocks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Expatriate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fellow]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[festival coordinators]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[flag]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[golden lion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iranian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iranian new year]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islamic  Republic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Los Angeles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Los Angeles? Westwood Boulevard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Monica Boulevard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Music]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[music shops]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new year celebration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[physical assaults]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political agendas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political statements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sun]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TIME]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[westwood boulevard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[year]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=56893</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ex-patriot Iranians celebrate in Los Angeles and send a message back home.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/lisa.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-56896" title="lisa" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/lisa.jpg" alt="" width="375" height="303" /></a></p>
<p>Three years ago, when thousands of Iranians gathered on Los Angeles’ Westwood Boulevard to celebrate their New Year, altercations broke out over the flags hanging from storefronts. Many expatriate Iranians show allegiance to the old Iranian flag, which is red, white and green with a golden lion and sun. To them, the old flag symbolizes an Iranian legacy that is thousands of years old. Others believe that hanging the old flag is a political statement, dismissive of the new government and its Islamic flag. Still others hold that the New Year is a cultural celebration and that arguments over politics should be avoided.</p>
<p>Every year, on the Sunday after the Iranian New Year, the city blocks off a section of Westwood   Boulevard, the same area that is famous for its rows of Iranian book and music shops, restaurants, travel agencies and many other specialty stores. Thousands come from all over to see one another, to dance and listen to music and to welcome in the New Year with fellow Iranians.</p>
<p>As a result of the disagreements, and even physical assaults that occurred, the following year, in 2008, the annual New Year celebration was cancelled. It was blamed on those who wanted to control the event with their political agendas.</p>
<p>Then last year, festival coordinators agreed to bring back the event, but to make it a policy to leave politics out.  Memos spread throughout the community, particularly addressing storeowners, stating that no visible political statements could be made, with a flag or otherwise. And accordingly, Iranians draped the boulevard with flags that were red, white and green and blank in the middle.</p>
<p>This was before the June elections. It was a time when Los Angeles Iranians agreed to hide their political sentiments for fear of losing the only common ground they shared with fellow Iranians. They emphasized cultural aspects. They played up the customs, the food and the music.  They celebrated their New Year by buying the ingredients for their <em>haft sin</em> (seven S) table, where each item on the table begins with the letter S and is symbolic for the coming of the spring season.  They would gather annually on Westwood Boulevard to see one another and to hear dignitaries, including the mayor of Los Angeles, pay homage and extend New Year greetings to his large Iranian constituency.</p>
<p>This year everything was different. The Iranian New Year is the first day of spring and this year it was March 20. The same Iranian people who fought to de-politicize their New Year celebrations came out and made a conscious effort to have their voices and political opinions heard. An enormous sized Iranian flag adorning the old lion and shining sun hung in the center of Westwood Boulevard where no one could miss its presence.  The flag, that became a centerpiece for the day’s events, hung in front of carpet store, Damoka.</p>
<p>“We have always kept our flag with the lion and sun up and we always will,” Alex Helmi, owner of Damoka said. “Even last year (when lion and sun flags were banned) we put our flags up.”</p>
<p>Helmi formerly served as the president of the festival planning committee. He resigned and now sits on the board along with other Westwood Boulevard business owners.</p>
<p>As the old Iranian flag, in various sizes and forms, was waving throughout the street, with it wafted an air of optimism, hope and solidarity that was absent from these annual gatherings for years.</p>
<p>Most poignant was the irony in seeing the flag that had “Death to the Islamic Republic” written in its center, the same flag that ignited all the arguments years ago, hanging again.  This time, storeowner Roozbeh Farahanipour, owner of Delphi Greek, received dozens of compliments on his sign. Two years ago, he received a punch in the face.</p>
<p>“This is a victorious sign for us.  We are showing that the opposition against the Islamic regime is still strong in Los Angeles, Farahanipour said.  “The lion and sun flag is a national symbol. This flag is the one thing that unites all Iranians. Everyone accepts this flag so it has become the symbol of our country and the opposition.”</p>
<p>Around the corner from the festivities stands a striking billboard on Santa Monica Boulevard with a picture of Lady Liberty that reads, “Liberty, Free Iran, Eide Shoma Mobarak (Happy New Year!), The billboard was paid for up by Amir, an internationally acclaimed Iranian fashion designer.</p>
<p><em>Nowruz</em> is a time of renewal for the Iranian people. It is a secular New Year that celebrates rebirth, nature, peace and oneness. It is neither a political celebration nor a religious one, but this year, the cultural and political have become one &#8212; as the minds and hearts of Los Angeles’ expatriate community are with their people back home.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/lisa-daftari/celebrating-the-iranian-new-year/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>All the News Unfit to Print</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/andrea-levin/all-the-news-unfit-to-print/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=all-the-news-unfit-to-print</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/andrea-levin/all-the-news-unfit-to-print/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:01:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrea Levin]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abdul Salaam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arab israeli conflict]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bat Mitzvah]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[calumnies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[israel defense forces]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[israeli media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[israeli public]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[israeli society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jerusalem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new israel fund]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ngo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Organization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political entities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[silence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[silent treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[story]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tel Aviv]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tselem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[zionist activity]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=53997</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why won’t the New York Times report on the anti-Israel funders behind the Goldstone Report?]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/nyt.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-54005" title="nyt" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/nyt.jpg" alt="" width="450" height="403" /></a></p>
<p>What the<em> New York Times</em> chooses to cover in the Arab-Israeli conflict – and what it excludes – is a story in itself. The paper’s silence, as of this writing, about an event that has rocked the Israeli media and public and triggered calls for government action once more raises serious questions about the paper’s news judgment. After all, the <em>Times </em>reports on no other foreign nation as minutely as it does Israel, whether about negotiations, housing permits in Jerusalem, Israeli gravel-use in the West Bank or a Tel Aviv polygamist.</p>
<p>The story being ignored is the Im Tirtzu campaign to expose the New Israel Fund’s connection to the defamatory Goldstone Report via its funding of groups that spurred the creation of and then contributed harsh commentary about Israel to the UN document. Originally founded as a student organization to counter anti-Zionist activity on campus, Im Tirtzu publicized revelations about the NIF-Goldstone ties in provocative ads across the country. The campaign began in January and has already prompted moves in the Knesset to intensify oversight of foreign political entities financing groups in Israel.</p>
<p>According to polls, the Israeli public by a significant margin opposes politically-based foreign funding of activity in Israel.</p>
<p>So why the silent treatment by the <em>Times</em>?</p>
<p>For starters, many of the very same NIF-supported NGO’s under fire for allegedly helping fuel the Goldstone calumnies against Israel are also preferred news sources of the <em>Times</em>, quoted regularly as reliable critics of Israeli society. B’Tselem and Yesh Din, for instance, are favorites, together cited at least 25 <em>times</em> in the last two years, typically charging the Israel Defense Forces or other official bodies with misconduct, and sometimes prompting entire stories focused on the NGO charges.</p>
<p>Gisha, another NIF grantee, has been invoked at least 10 times in the same period as an objective organization demanding “free movement” for Palestinians. Gisha allegations have triggered front page, multi-story coverage.</p>
<p>HaMoked, yet another New Israel Fund-financed NGO, has been cited by the <em>Times</em> denouncing Israel for its handling of residency issues for Palestinians. Still another, Bimkom, has appeared in the <em>Times</em> blasting Israel for the effects on Palestinians of the separation barrier. Two more favored by both the <em>Times</em> and NIF are Physicians for Human Rights and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel. The newspaper has cited the former assailing the Israeli military for ethics violations, the latter deploring alleged discrimination in traveling the roads. One more NGO that enjoys both the support of the NIF and the confidence of the <em>Times</em> is Breaking the Silence, which alleges abuses of Palestinians by soldiers.</p>
<p>The claims of all these groups are tainted by ideological bias and factual distortion. As Ha’aretz’s military correspondent notes with regard to Breaking the Silence, “Any organization whose Web site includes the claim by members to expose the ‘corruption which permeates the military system’ is not a neutral observer.” Indicative of the disregard for fairness and objectivity, the soldier “testimonies” posted on its Web site include no dates and no specifics, but are anonymous charges the military cannot investigate – or refute.</p>
<p>B’Tselem, created to “change Israeli policy in the occupied territories” and to monitor treatment of Palestinians there, has produced strikingly skewed and false categorizing of Palestinian casualties. The group has included terrorists such as Abdul Salaam Sadek Hassouneh, who murdered six at a Bat Mitzvah celebration in 2002, as “civilians” killed by Israel. Similar distortions minimizing violence against Israelis color much of B’Tselem’s work.</p>
<p>Gisha pursues legal measures against Israel charging “segregation” and has signed ads alleging Israel is an apartheid regime. Its reports minimize or ignore entirely the threats against Israel.</p>
<p>And so it goes with all the groups.</p>
<p>Yet the <em>Times</em> promotes their message and their standing, presenting them as mainstream, credible, worthy sources. Indeed, the paper avoids identifying their political hue, which is uniformly well to the left, if not radical. In <em>Times</em> parlance, they are merely Israeli “human rights groups.” Only once, for example, was any tagged correctly as an “Israeli leftist advocacy group” – and this not in a news story, but a summary brief. Perhaps accidentally.</p>
<p>Nor is this pattern regarding political labels applied consistently across the political spectrum. For example, on the few occasions when the Jerusalem  Center for Public Affairs has been quoted, the think tank has repeatedly been termed “conservative.”</p>
<p>Given all this, the absence of attention to the NIF-Goldstone connection is unsurprising, if journalistically indefensible.</p>
<p>The New Israel Fund must, moreover, be grateful for the <em>Times</em> silence; its American donors generally believe they contribute to the betterment of life for rape victims and battered women, for the enhancement of the environment and the strengthening of Israeli education. Most would not likely be happy learning NIF-funded publications had a hand in the Goldstone Report and smear Israel as an apartheid regime.</p>
<p>Most would probably not be contributors if they knew that, according to NGO-Monitor’s Anne Herzberg, there are NIF-funded groups that “demonize Israel at the UN, support boycott and divestment campaigns, promote ‘lawfare’ cases against Israeli officials and even advocate erasing the Jewish character of the state.”</p>
<p>Regrettably, the paper’s affinity for NIF-funded groups that blame Israel for the conflict and related problems is matched by its lack of attention to the genocidal demonizing of Israel in Palestinian society and the wider Arab world. Unmentioned in its pages, for instance, was a recent translation from Arabic by MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute) of yet another screed by a Muslim preacher in Nablus who calls Jews Nazis, exhorts his flock to kill all Jews and says:</p>
<blockquote><p>Palestine was subjected to a loathsome occupation of its land and holy places by these neo-Mongols, who perpetrated, on this holy, blessed, and pure land, acts of killing, assassination, destruction, expropriation, Judaization, harassment, and the fragmentation of the homeland. (January 29, 2010)</p></blockquote>
<p>In fact, a number of NIF groups would agree with much of what the preacher at the Bourin mosque had to say. But that only underscores the need for serious investigation of the New Israel Fund and the many politically extreme grantees enjoying millions of dollars of its largesse.</p>
<p>It underscores too the question about the news judgement of the <em>Times</em>, which has drifted increasingly away from objective reporting on Israel, has promoted its defamers, and continues to ignore the onslaught of Palestinian and broader Arab anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hate indoctrination.</p>
<p><em>Andrea Levin is Executive Director and President of CAMERA, Committee for Accuracy in </em><em>Middle East</em><em> Reporting in </em><em>America</em><em>.</em></p>
<p><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/andrea-levin/all-the-news-unfit-to-print/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 2045/2140 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 10:06:29 by W3 Total Cache -->