Paul Krugman, "Pieces of Silver": How About Pieces of Something Else?

Tweet

Interviewed by Fox News's Sandra Smith, Charles Krauthammer had this to say concerning the burgeoning scandal involving the Clinton Foundation's ties to the State Department:

"We know that even within that small sample [of emails obtained by Judicial Watch], there were at least two examples of self-dealing between the Clinton Foundation, which is a sort of a machine for siphoning money from rich, foreign, sometimes unsavory sources into an organization whose one purpose is to create a network self-funded for Clinton cronies and hangers-onners, the administration in waiting, and that it was dealing, getting favors, for the people who are contributing to it from the State Department. Now, that is so obviously, it may not be illegal, you may not be able to prove a quid pro quo, but this sort of use of the Foundation and then working with the State Department, whether it was Hillary personally or not, does not matter, to get favors is a form of corruption at the least."

Ouch.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Pieces of Silver," Paul Krugman doesn't dare mention the Clinton Foundation. Rather, he speculates as to why Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell continue to support Trump. Krugman begins:

"By now, it’s obvious to everyone with open eyes that Donald Trump is an ignorant, wildly dishonest, erratic, immature, bullying egomaniac. On the other hand, he’s a terrible person. But despite some high-profile defections, most senior figures in the Republican Party — very much including Paul Ryan, the speaker of the House, and Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader — are still supporting him, threats of violence and all. Why?

One answer is that these were never men and women of principle. I know that many in the news media are still determined to portray Mr. Ryan, in particular, as an honest man serious about policy, but his actual policy proposals have always been transparent con jobs.

Another answer is that in an era of intense partisanship, the greatest risk facing many Republican politicians isn’t that of losing in the general election, it’s that of losing to an extremist primary challenger. This makes them afraid to cross Mr. Trump, whose ugliness channels the true feelings of the party’s base."

Krugman proceeds to proffer yet another possible reason for the support of Ryan and McConnell: The Republican Party is all about preserving tax benefits, both income and estate, for the rich. Krugman's conclusion:

"For the fact is that right now, when it matters, they have decided that lower tax rates on the rich are sufficient payment for betraying American ideals and putting the republic as we know it in danger."

Okay, Paul, I agree that Trump could turn the entire planet into a nuclear wasteland, but in terms of catering to the rich, including foreign nationals, is what Hillary did with the Clinton Foundation any better than Republican pandering to the wealthy elite? I don't think so.

Pieces of silver? How about pieces of something else - both of them.

David Brooks, "It’s Not Too Late!": You Should Be Scared. Very Scared.

Tweet

"I’ve never done this before. Can I have a pledge? A swearing? Raise your right hand. I do solemnly swear that I, no matter how I feel, no matter what the conditions, if there's hurricanes or whatever - that's good enough - will vote on or before the 12th for Donald J. Trump for president."

- Donald Trump, rally, Orlando, Florida, March 5, 2016

"I swear: I will be faithful and obedient to the leader of the German empire and people, Adolf Hitler, to observe the law, and to conscientiously fulfil my official duties, so help me God!"

- Nazi Germany civil servant oath, 1934-1945

Yes, you should be scared. Very scared. But not only by Trump.

In an editorial entitled "Democracy’s Disintegration in Turkey," The New York Times would have us know:

"If there was any doubt about why the government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan seized the newspaper Zaman last week, consider this: Within 48 hours after the takeover, the paper began publishing pro-Erdogan propaganda.

. . . .

This crackdown is merely the latest of Mr. Erdogan’s increasingly authoritarian moves, which have included imprisoning critics, sidelining the military and reigniting war on Kurdish separatists. He now controls much of the media and has made Turkey a leader among countries that jail journalists. Along with his campaign to wipe out a free press, his government’s prosecutors have opened nearly 2,000 cases against Turks in the last 18 months for insulting Mr. Erdogan, which is a crime.

. . . .

It is unsettling that the United States and Europe have responded so meekly to Mr. Erdogan’s trampling of a free press. The Obama administration said the move against Zaman was 'troubling.' "

"Unsettling"? "Troubling"? It goes without saying that the Times fails to mention how Obama named Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan as one of his best overseas friends in 2012.

And then there was the news out of Oberlin College. As reported by Perry Chiaramontein in a Fox News article entitled "Oberlin trustees fire back at school, crackpot prof":

"Trustees and alumni at a prestigious Ohio college are turning up the heat on the school administration, which has so far taken no action against a nutty professor who believes Jews were behind 9/11 and the Charlie Hebdo terror attack in France.

The Board of Trustees at Oberlin College demanded answers in a statement posted on the school's own website, with Chairman Clyde McGregor blasting 'rhetoric and composition' Professor Joy Karega for anti-Semitic online postings.

'These postings are anti-Semitic and abhorrent,' McGregor said in the statement. 'We deplore anti-Semitism and all other forms of bigotry. They have no place at Oberlin."

Oberlin's president, Marvin Krislov, had previously defended Karega's right to publish such trash:

"I am a practicing Jew, grandson of an Orthodox rabbi. Members of our family were murdered in the Holocaust. As someone who has studied history, I cannot comprehend how any person could or would question its existence, its horrors, and the evil which caused it. I feel the same way about anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Regardless of the reason for spreading these materials, they cause pain for many people—members of our community and beyond.

I am also the son of a tenured faculty member at a large research university. My father instilled in me a strong belief in academic freedom. I believe, as the American Association of University Professors says, that academic freedom is 'the indispensable quality of institutions of higher education' because it encourages free inquiry, promotes the expansion of knowledge, and creates an environment in which learning and research can flourish."

You see, bigotry, at least against Jews, allows learning and research to flourish. How very "progressive" of you, Krislov! However, even Roger (Iran is "not totalitarian") Cohen yesterday acknowledged in a Times op-ed entitled "An Anti-Semitism of the Left" that "nothing can justify the odious 'anti-Semitic anti-Zionism' . . . seeping into British and American campuses."

All of which brings me to David Brooks's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "It’s Not Too Late!" Praying for a "Marco Rubio miracle in Florida" and asking that the field be cleared for John Kasich in Ohio, Brooks writes:

"If the G.O.P. is going to survive as a decent and viable national party, it can’t cling to the fading orthodoxy Cruz represents. But it can’t shift to ugly Trumpian nationalism, either. It has to find a third alternative: limited but energetic use of government to expand mobility and widen openness and opportunity. That is what Kasich, Rubio, Paul Ryan and others are stumbling toward."

But can Rubio and Kasich behave like big boys and strike a deal? I doubt it.

The situation is grim, but not only on the right, and those in the center are being squeezed like never before. Does it remind you of the Weimar Republic before Hitler came to power? It darn well should.

Lt. Col. Ralph Peters Calls Obama a "Total Pussy": Give That Man a Full Bird

Tweet

Yesterday, Retired US Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters stated on "Varney & Co." in response to Obama's Oval Office address on ISIS and the San Bernardino shootings (my emphasis in red):

"Well, first of all, he keeps speaking about 'we can't give into our fears.' You know, 'don't be afraid.' Look, Mr. President, we're not afraid. We're angry. We're pissed off. We're furious. We want to see you react. We want you to do something. You're afraid. I mean, this guy is such a total pussy, it's stunning. We the people, the American people, who he does not know in any intimate sort of manner. We want action. We want action against Islamic State and then when the president is telling us he is going to destroy ISIS. This is a president who has done more harm to American police departments than he has done to Islamic State. This is a president who restrains our military. He uses it not to defeat ISIS, but for political purposes for political cover. This is a president who doesn't want to hurt our enemies, this is a president who cares more about thugs in Guantanamo or thugs in Ferguson, Missouri, than he does about law-abiding American citizens and their right to live in safety and peace."

A stunning "total pussy"? Well, I would probably have said it differently. Instead I would have observed that Obama is a narcissist, who has surrounded himself with a coterie of bootlicking sycophants. Detached from reality and wedded to the insane notion that the world's most ghoulish tyrants are angels deep down inside, the president has irreparably damaged American credibility and deterrent power.

Although Peters deserves a full bird for his honesty, he was suspended by Fox News for two weeks. Mark my words, Lt. Colonel Peters: You will reemerge later this month with star power.

I would only observe in passing that Lt. Colonel Peters's "pussy" remark was quite tame compared with the outburst of Ahmed Moussa on Egyptian Sada El-Balad TV. As reported today by The Times of Israel in an article entitled "Egyptian TV presenter: ‘Impale’ Obama" by Lee Gancman:

"Obama, according to Moussa, 'numbs the security agencies, the military, and the intelligence agencies.' Obama is a liar, he charged, because 'all the allies of terrorism are liars.'

. . . .

Moussa said that he 'would like Congress to send Obama to the guillotine,' and later advocated for Americans to place the president on an impalement rod, because 'this what they would do in a respectful country.'"

Be labelled a pussy or be placed on an impalement rod? A hard decision, but I personally would prefer the former.

Thomas Friedman, "My Question for the Republican Presidential Debate": Tom Slimes Fox News

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "My Question for the Republican Presidential Debate," Thomas Friedman writes:

"Sure, there are center-right candidates — like Jeb Bush and John Kasich. But can they run, win and govern from the center-right when the base of their party and so many of its billionaire donors reflect the angry anti-science, anti-tax, anti-government, anti-minorities, anti-gay rights and anti-immigration views of the Tea Party and its media enforcer, Fox News?"

Well, if Fox News is indeed the "media enforcer" of the Tea Party, what is the relationship of The New York Times to the Obama administration? Have a look at a recent partisan Times editorial seeking to defend Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, which avoids any criticism of or concern over the agreement.

And then there is the Times's highbrow anti-Semitism, which goes hand in hand with its onslaught of anti-Israel guest op-eds.

Tom's question for the Republican presidential debate? A pity he's unwilling to proffer a question concerning Hillary's email server.

The pot calling the kettle black? You bet!

Fox News, "Ami Horowitz exposes anti-Israeli companies in Ireland": Exposing the Immorality of the BDS Movement

Have a look at the video "Ami Horowitz exposes anti-Israeli companies in Ireland," which exposes the BDS movement for what it is. This will leave you aghast.

Maureen Dowd, "Slaves to Prejudice": Why Be Troubled by Double Standards?

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Slaves to Prejudice" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/opinion/sunday/dowd-slaves-to-prejudice.html?ref=maureendowd&_r=0), Maureen Dowd begins by observing:

"WHEN a cranky anarchist in a cowboy hat starts a sentence saying 'I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,' you can be dang sure it’s going downhill from there.

The unsettling thing about Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s ugly rant on the Virgin River on Saturday, The Times’s Adam Nagourney told me, was that there was no negative reaction from the semicircle of gun-toting and conspiracy-minded supporters who had gathered round to hear it. The oblivious 67-year-old Bundy, who has refused for 20 years to pay for his cattle to graze on our land, offered a nostalgic ode to slavery.

Recalling that he saw African-Americans sitting on the porch of a public-housing project in North Las Vegas who seemed to have 'nothing to do,' Bundy declaimed: 'They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy?'"

Yes, this is horrifying, racist rot. Indeed, Fox News owes the nation an apology for eulogizing Bundy.

And yet I can't help thinking back to 2008, when much of the media conveniently chose to ignore presidential candidate Obama's 20-year relationship with a bigot. At the time, Dowd wrote in an op-ed entitled "Praying and Preying" (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30dowd.html):

"Obama, of course, will only ratchet up the skepticism of those who don’t understand why he stayed in the church for 20 years if his belief system is so diametrically opposed to [Rev. Jeremiah]Wright’s.

He’s back on the tricky path he faced as a child, navigating between two racial cultures. At Trinity, he may have ignored what he should have heard because he was trying to assimilate to black culture. Now, he may be outraged by what he belatedly heard because he’s trying to relate to the white lunch-pail set."

Dowd's attempt at the time of rationalizing away Obama's "error"? I didn't buy it then, I don't buy it now.

Obama's association with Wright should have ruled him out as a presidential candidate. It didn't.

But why should I be troubled by double standards? Whoever said the world is fair?

Paul Krugman, "Health Care Horror Hooey": As California Goes, So Goes the Nation?

"Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

. . . .

It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details."

- Paul Krugman, "Confronting the Malefactors" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html), October 2011

Do you remember "Occupy Wall Street"? Do you remember how Krugman suggested that OWS would prove a "turning point" in a populist war against American financial institutions? My goodness, Krugman really hit the mark with that prediction. Well, Krugman, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Health Care Horror Hooey" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/opinion/krugman-health-care-horror-hooey.html?ref=opinion), would now have us believe that Obamacare is in fact succeeding by observing its "success" in . . . California:

"I’m not sure whether conservatives realize yet that their Plan A on health reform — wait for Obamacare’s inevitable collapse, and reap the political rewards — isn’t working. But it isn’t. Enrollments have recovered strongly from the law’s disastrous start-up; in California, which had a working website from the beginning, enrollment has already exceeded first-year projections. The mix of people signed up so far is older than planners had hoped, but not enough so to cause big premium hikes, let alone the often-predicted 'death spiral.'"

Of course, you remember the old saying, "As California goes, so goes the nation." Wait a second! California? I thought the saying referred to Maine. Well, during various times in American history, "Maine" was replaced by Delaware, Missouri, Kentucky, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Ohio in this adage, but never by California.

But let's forget California for the moment. Vice President Biden last week informed us that Obamacare was off to "a hell of a start" and further explained, "We may not get to seven million [enrollees], we may get to five or six." Heck, that's just a 15%-30% shortfall, depending how the cookie ultimately crumbles.

Strange as it may seem, I am not a conservative, and I believe in universal health care, but Krugman might still want to consider Kathleen Parker's Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The poetry of bad news around Obamacare" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-the-poetry-of-bad-news-around-obamacare/2014/02/14/15aa9b3c-95c5-11e3-8461-8a24c7bf0653_story.html?hpid=z4). Parker cogently concludes:

"In the meantime, what the economy needs least is a federal program that prompts lower- and middle-class workers to drop out of the workforce. This is in addition to the many who are losing their jobs involuntarily or having their hours cut by their employers who want to avoid the mandate to buy insurance or the fine for failing to do so.

Again, this is a simple matter of incentives and survival, which President Obama seems to have recognized in postponing the mandate for midsize businesses until 2016. Or perhaps he is trying to head off another health-care controversy before the midterm elections? Shucks, do you suppose?

Add to the above the CBO’s report in May that 31 million people will not have health insurance in 2023.

Any one of these things would be bad news. Combined, they boggle the well-ordered mind. If I may invoke our Fairy Godmother again, Pelosi was the most honest of all when she warned us that 'We have to pass the bill [Obamacare] so that you can find out what is in it.'

Today, knowing what we know, we are left with what we used to call a million-dollar question, though it is much more expensive now: How does one defend spending $1.2  trillion for a health-care overhaul that disincentivizes people to work and that leaves us with 31 million uninsured?

One writes poetry."

Delays in implementing Obamacare? As reported by Fox News (I know, Obama doesn't like Fox) (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/21/tracking-obamacare-as-enrollment-deadline-nears-law-endures-28-delays-and/):

"Since its inception, provisions of the law have been delayed a total of 28 times; the average delay was six months and three weeks. Put another way, the cumulative delays add up to an astonishing 15 years and three months.

The administration has been announcing changes to the law at a fairly steady clip.

The White House's latest delay was rolled out on Feb. 10, and allowed companies with between 50 and 99 workers to skirt the mandate to provide health care until 2016.

Of the White House's 28 delays to the law, 13 have been set to last at least one year. Eight revisions last a month or more. The shortest delay, announced in December 2013, gave Americans one extra day to purchase coverage that would begin on Jan. 1, 2014 through HealthCare.gov. Ultimately, that delay was extended to a vague 'more time.'"

Health care horror hooey? Yeah, right. Obamacare is showing all the promise of Krugman's beloved OWS, which is perhaps why the Obama administration is seeking a new legacy (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/02/bill-keller-crime-and-punishment-and.html).

Thomas Friedman, "The Third Intifada": Tom Terrific to Kerry's Defense

As you might have heard, the feelings of US Secretary of State John (Assad is my "dear friend") Kerry were hurt by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and other Israeli government officials. What happened? After Kerry warned on Saturday of an "increasing de-legitimization campaign that has been building up" if peace talks initiated by Kerry with the Palestinians unwind, Netanyahu declared that boycott threats "will not achieve their goal," Israeli Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz said that Israel will not "conduct negotiations with a gun pointed to its head," and Israeli Economics Minister Naftali Bennett responded that "We expect our friends around the world to stand beside us, against anti-Semitic boycott efforts targeting Israel, and not for them to be their amplifier" (see: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/02/02/netanyahu-dismisses-kerry-warning-about-boycott-threat/).

Kerry was stung by these rebukes, and US National Security Advisor Susan Rice rushed to his defense, tweeting "Personal attacks in Israel directed at Sec Kerry totally unfounded and unacceptable." (see: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/02/03/Susan-Rice-Blasts-Israel-on-Twitter).

Now, right on cue, New York Times columnist and Obama administration cheerleader Thomas Friedman is also hurrying to prop up Kerry in his latest op-ed entitled "The Third Intifada" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/05/opinion/friedman-the-third-intifada.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0). Observing the willingness of Palestinian President Abbas, currently in the tenth year of his four-year term in office, "to let Israeli troops stay for five years as they make a phased withdrawal from the West Bank to the 1967 lines and to then let U.S.-led NATO forces fill in any strategic void to reassure Israel," Friedman concludes:

"Israelis are right to suspect some boycotters of using this cause as a cover for anti-Semitism, given how Israel’s misdeeds are singled out. But that doesn’t mean that implanting 350,000 settlers in the West Bank and turning a blind eye to dozens of wildcat settlements — that even Israel deems 'illegal' — is in Israel’s interest or smart.

If Israel really wanted to slow down the boycott campaign, it would declare that as long as Kerry is trying to forge a deal, and there is hope for success, Israel will freeze all settlement activity to give peace its best chance. Unlikely, I know. But one thing I know for sure: this incessant trashing of Kerry by Israeli ministers, and their demand that Palestinians halt all 'incitement' — but that Israel be free to keep building settlements in their face — is not winning Israel friends in Europe or America. It is only energizing the boycotters."

Well, does anyone really want US troops on the ground again in the Middle East? Of course, no mention by Friedman of the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing by Hezbollah, which killed 241 American servicemen and led to a swift evacuation of American peacekeeping forces from Lebanon. Does anyone believe that Hamas or Islamic Jihad would not be targeting American soldiers on the West Bank?

Moreover, Israel will never allow any other country to take responsibility for its security. Consider how UN forces were evacuated from Israel's border with Egypt at Nasser's demand immediately prior to the Six Day War. Similarly, UN forces in the past have been notoriously ineffective in controlling Hezbollah attacks against Israel from Lebanon.

And although Friedman is quick to allude to "350,000 settlers in the West Bank," he makes a point of ignoring the fact that according to none other than Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, Israeli settlements have been built on only some 1.1% of the West Bank (see: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/erekat-olmert-offered-palestinians-territorial-equivalent-of-west-bank-1.393484). Friedman also makes certain not to mention that in 2008, when Israeli Prime Minister Olmert offered Palestinian Authority President Abbas an independent state along the 1967 lines with agreed upon land swaps and Palestinian control of east Jerusalem, Abbas refused. What more can Israel offer?

But what do any of these facts matter? Kerry feels insulted, and his dignity needs to be restored.

Nicholas Kristof, "Do We Invest in Preschools or Prisons?": Head Start, Costing $8 Billion Per Year, Provides Minimal Benefits

America's national debt might be $17 trillion and spiraling higher, but Nicholas Kristof knows where to spend more money. In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Do We Invest in Preschools or Prisons?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/opinion/sunday/kristof-do-we-invest-in-preschools-or-prisons.html?_r=0), Kristof writes:

"Growing mountains of research suggest that the best way to address American economic inequality, poverty and crime is — you guessed it! — early education programs, including coaching of parents who want help."

But notwithstanding these "mountains of research," Kristof is then forced to acknowledge reality:

"Critics have noted that with programs like Head Start, there are early educational gains that then fade by second or third grade. That’s true, and that’s disappointing."

The results for Head Start have been "disappointing"? Oh really? Peculiar how Kristof fails to mention the cost of Head Start. As was reported at the beginning of this year by Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/14/head-start-sad-and-costly-secret-what-washington-doesnt-want-to-know/):

"‘Twas the Friday before Christmas, and while most Americans were enjoying time with family and friends, the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) were stirring quietly about, preparing to release its long-overdue evaluation of the Head Start program.

Head Start is an $8 billion per year federal preschool program, designed to improve the kindergarten readiness of low-income children. Since its inception in 1965, taxpayers have spent more than $180 billion on the program.

But HHS’ latest Head Start Impact Study found taxpayers aren’t getting a good return on this 'investment.'  According to the congressionally-mandated report, Head Start has little to no impact on cognitive, social-emotional, health, or parenting practices of its participants. In fact, on a few measures, access to the program actually produced negative effects."

Some $8 billion spent per year and more than $180 billion burned since 1965 to achieve little in the way of results? Shouldn't someone be asking what went wrong?

But why should anyone care if spending money in this manner makes people like Kristof feel happy? After all, salving Kristof's conscience is most important and not the welfare of these underprivileged children living in poverty.

Paul Krugman, "Rich Man’s Recovery": Tax the Rich to Fund Preschool?

Do you remember some nine months ago when the Department of Health and Human Services released its report concerning the impact of the Head Start program? As reported at the time by Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/14/head-start-sad-and-costly-secret-what-washington-doesnt-want-to-know/):

"‘Twas the Friday before Christmas, and while most Americans were enjoying time with family and friends, the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) were stirring quietly about, preparing to release its long-overdue evaluation of the Head Start program.

Head Start is an $8 billion per year federal preschool program, designed to improve the kindergarten readiness of low-income children. Since its inception in 1965, taxpayers have spent more than $180 billion on the program.

But HHS’ latest Head Start Impact Study found taxpayers aren’t getting a good return on this 'investment.'  According to the congressionally-mandated report, Head Start has little to no impact on cognitive, social-emotional, health, or parenting practices of its participants. In fact, on a few measures, access to the program actually produced negative effects."

Well, Paul Krugman apparently doesn't remember the report. In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Rich Man’s Recovery" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/13/opinion/krugman-rich-mans-recovery.html?_r=0), which is primarily devoted to bemoaning the disparity between the status of the rich and the poor in the United States, Krugman concludes:

"Take, for example, the proposal by Bill de Blasio, who finished in first place in Tuesday’s Democratic primary and is the probable next mayor of New York, to provide universal prekindergarten education, paid for with a small tax surcharge on those with incomes over $500,000. The usual suspects are, of course, screaming and talking about their hurt feelings; they’ve been doing a lot of that these past few years, even while making out like bandits. But surely this is exactly the sort of thing we should be doing: Taxing the ever-richer rich, at least a bit, to expand opportunity for the children of the less fortunate.

Some pundits are already suggesting that Mr. de Blasio’s unexpected rise is the leading edge of a new economic populism that will shake up our whole political system. That seems premature, but I hope they’re right. For extreme inequality is still on the rise — and it’s poisoning our society."

Tax the very rich to fund universal prekindergarten education? This is going to differ in its end result from Head Start? Good luck.

And if the rich decide to pick up and leave New York for a friendlier locale, as is their wont, what happens to New York City's tax base?

Mind you, I don't dispute the growing gap between rich and poor in the US and the frightening shrinkage of America's middle class (see: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-09-12/business/35496368_1_income-inequality-median-household-income-middle-class).

I also don't care for the "super rich": There is a reason that they got to where they are, and it's usually not pretty.

But tax them for programs that are not going to help anyone?

They'll simply pack their bags and leave, unless you round them up and shoot them, like the "kulaks" murdered by Stalin, whose eradication led to the Soviet famine of 1932-1933 and the deaths of millions of more people.

Krugman tells us, "Inherited privilege is crowding out equality of opportunity; the power of money is crowding out effective democracy." I agree, and perhaps he would like to speak with Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and the Clintons in order to obtain some more effective ideas how best to address the issue.

Egypt's Coptic Christian Minority Under Attack: Where is the Outrage in the US?

Yesterday, in a Financial Times article entitled "Attacks increase against Egypt’s Coptic Christians" (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/281e19b6-eaf2-11e2-bfdb-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2YtrKSSUD), Borzou Daragahi observed:

"In recent weeks, at least nine Christians have been killed nationwide, including at least one priest. More than a dozen churches have been attacked and damaged. Coptic-owned businesses have been tagged with graffiti and threatening fliers have been distributed. Rights advocates and community leaders say the wave of persecution has been inflamed by the rhetoric of Islamists angry over the toppling of their leader."

In fact, Muslim Brotherhood violence against Egypt's Christian minority, comprising some 10 percent of the country's population of 85 million, is nothing new. As reported in April by Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/04/28/new-video-shows-egyptian-police-allowing-attack-on-coptic-cathedral/), long before the army coup which dislodged Mohamed Morsi's government, Egypt's Copts were under siege by the Brotherhood:

"Newly-emerged video appears to show Egyptian police standing idly by - and even helping attackers during a deadly assault earlier this month on a Coptic cathedral where Christians were mourning five men killed in an earlier clash with Muslims.

The video shot April 7 and first obtained by MidEast Christian News, shows a men shooting guns, wielding machetes and hurling stones and possibly Molotov cocktails as mourners carry caskets out of St. Mark’s Coptic Orthodox Cathedral in the Abbassia District of Cairo as uniformed police watch, unmoving. At one point, a police officer appears to help a gunman take aim at a courtyard full of mourners who had spilled out of the church. The attack left two Copts dead and another 84 people injured, including 11 police officers.

When it was over, the only arrests made were of four Copts. Christians, who were already outraged over a three-day attack that began April 4 attack in Khosous which saw the four men killed and homes, a nursery and a church burned."

Remarkably, on exactly the same day that St. Mark’s Coptic Orthodox Cathedral came under attack in Cairo, Jeff Fager, chairman of CBS News, was spreading lies about Israel's security barrier at St. Mark’s Episcopal Church in New Canaan, Connecticut.

As reported by Dexter Van Zile (http://www.jns.org/latest-articles/2013/4/9/cbs-news-needs-to-come-clean-about-60-minutes-palestinian-christians-segment):

"Invited to speak at the church by his pastor Rev. Peter Walsh, Fager showed an audience of more than 200 of his fellow parishioners a segment about Palestinian Christians that aired on the CBS '60 Minutes' program in April 2012.

During the segment, correspondent Bob Simon stated that the security fence 'completely surrounds Bethlehem, turning the ‘little town' where Christ was born into what its residents call ‘an open air prison.’'

The fence does not completely surround Bethlehem, as Simon reported. The security fence is located to the north and west of Bethlehem and leaves the rest of the city’s perimeter open to the West Bank.

. . . .

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), pointed out the '60 Minutes' error in an article on its website soon after the segment aired and in a half-page ad that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Aug. 14, 2012.

Nevertheless, the CBS show has not issued a correction to this day.

After showing his fellow parishioners the '60 Minutes' segment, Fager complained about the angry response the show elicited. In particular, he condemned the Wall Street Journal’s decision to run CAMERA’s ad, which he said was intended to create havoc on the CBS show’s reporting.

Fager then told his audience that CAMERA got it wrong about the security fence in its ad and that 'Bethlehem is surrounded by a wall.'

. . . .

During the question and answer period, I raised my hand, stated I worked for CAMERA, the organization responsible for the ad in question, and then issued a simple and direct challenge: If Jeff Fager could prove that the security fence completely surrounds Bethlehem like he said a few moments before, I would donate $5,000 to a charity of his choosing.

His response was a simple 'Okay.'

After the event concluded and the people in attendance started to leave for the church’s Sunday services, I gave him my business card. So far, no response."

As can be seen on any map, the Israeli security barrier does not surround Bethlehem (see, for example: http://www.btselem.org/download/separation_barrier_map_eng.pdf), but this did not prevent Fager from disseminating lies at his church, even at a time when Christians were under attack in Egypt.

I sent an e-mail to Reverend Peter Walsh of St. Mark’s Episcopal Church in New Canaan, who had told his congregation that Fager is “a man of extraordinary integrity and character," asking that Fager's "falsehood, intended to foster enmity, be addressed and rectified in your House of God" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/cbs-news-chairman-jeff-fagers-lie.html).

Reverend Walsh never responded to me.

Sad.

Charles Blow, "The Real Obama": Chuck Hagel, "Let the Jews Pay for It"

"Tonight, I’ll lay out additional proposals that are fully paid for and fully consistent with the budget framework both parties agreed to just 18 months ago. Let me repeat – nothing I’m proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime. It’s not a bigger government we need, but a smarter government that sets priorities and invests in broad-based growth."

- President Barack Obama, 2013 State of the Union Address

Over the course of his 2013 State of the Union address, President Obama emphasized the need to increase federal spending on education, infrastructure and green energy, and he claimed that this would not increase America's deficit "by a single dime." These are all noble objectives, but where in his speech did he explain how he intended to pay for all of this?

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, "The federal government ran up a $293 billion deficit in the first quarter of fiscal 2013." As such, the annual federal budget deficit is well on its way to topping $1 trillion for the fifth-straight year. If you believe that Obama's plans are not going to increase the deficit, you are surely also a believer in the Tooth Fairy.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Real Obama" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/opinion/blow-the-real-obama.html?_r=0), Charles Blow writes:

"Is this the real Barack Obama? I hope so. I like this one.

The president used Tuesday’s State of the Union address to detail a vision of America’s future, and his second term, in which the country is not in perpetual war, government plays an expansive role, Congressional obstruction is named and shamed and he is bold and unapologetically progressive.

This is how politicians who needn’t worry about re-election look: more like themselves."

Blow also doesn't trouble himself with the question of who is going to pay for Obama's "unapologetically progressive" program. The problem is that someone ultimately must pay for it.

Which brings us to Obama's nomination of Chuck Hagel for secretary of defense. As reported by Adam Kredo of The Washington Free Beacon (http://freebeacon.com/the-saga-of-hagel-and-haifa/):

"Hagel, who served as president and CEO of the World USO from 1987 to 1990, expressed intense opposition to the USO Haifa Center during a tumultuous 1989 meeting with Jewish leaders, according to multiple sources involved in the fight to keep the post open.

'He said to me, ‘Let the Jews pay for it’,' said Marsha Halteman, director for military and law enforcement programs at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), which led the battle to keep USO Haifa operational."

"Let the Jews pay for it"? Is this also indicative of what underlies the "real" Obama?

We have also learned from Alana Goodman of The Washington Free Beacon (http://freebeacon.com/arab-american-group-wont-release-hagel-tape/) that Republican senators are demanding additional disclosure of material from Hagel:

"Among the requested materials: the full text and details of several speeches Hagel failed to report to the Senate Armed Services Committee that have since been uncovered.

Fox News Channel on Tuesday reported on two speeches Hagel failed to disclose as requested, including one given in 2008 to the annual conference of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC).

The ADC is a controversial nonprofit whose conference last year featured speakers prominent in the Boycott Divestment Sanctions movement targeting Israel. The 2012 conference also featured an award presentation celebrating an author whose essays include one titled, 'Zionism is a form of racism.'

The ADC also has not disclosed the full video of Hagel’s 2008 speech, while refusing to release its tax records as required by federal law."

According to Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/12/hagel-omitted-two-speeches-on-middle-east-from-senate-disclosure-forms/):

"An Obama administration official who has worked with the senator during his confirmation process maintained that Hagel has gone 'above and beyond' the Senate’s requirements, by supplying to the Armed Services Committee whatever evidence he could find – prepared remarks, transcripts and the like – for both formal and 'informal' speeches.

Apprised by Fox News of the two speaking dates from 2008, however, the official appeared not to have heard about them. The aide later responded that Hagel did not disclose these two speaking events because neither were formal speeches. 'It’s simply not true to suggest there was any attempt to hide anything,' the aide told Fox News. 'One event was at an academic institute – Georgetown, a Jesuit university. The other was with an organization that combats discrimination.'"

An "organization that combats discrimination," yet honors a speaker who claims that Zionism is a form of racism? Yeah, right.

By all means, let's review Hagel's speech before the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, which purportedly is in an "archive" in Maryland and unavailable.

Another video which we are not being permitted to see? Does it remind you of something? It should. You will recall that The Los Angeles Times still refuses to release a video of Obama at a party honoring former PLO media spokesman and University of Chicago colleague Rashid Khalidi.

Meanwhile, as Obama continues to pursue abortive talks with Iran over its nuclear weapons development program as long advocated by Hagel [the US "shouldn’t even be thinking about options of bombing Iran" (http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/02/10/hagel-in-2008-video-us-shouldnt-even-think-about-bombing-iran-video/)], The Washington Post is reporting (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/iranian-buying-spree-raises-concerns-about-major-expansion-of-nuclear-capacity/2013/02/13/2090805c-7537-11e2-8f84-3e4b513b1a13_story.html?hpid=z1):

"Iran recently sought to acquire tens of thousands of highly specialized magnets used in centrifuge machines, according to experts and diplomats, a sign that the country may be planning a major expansion of its nuclear program that could shorten the path to an atomic weapons capability."

The "real" Obama? I think I prefer the "unreal" Obama. And yes, I have a sinking feeling that ultimately the Jews will "pay for it."

Paul Krugman, "Makers, Takers, Fakers": The New York Times Part of a "Captive Media" Conspiracy?

In case you didn't know, there's a conspiracy underfoot in the United States, threatening the very lifeblood of the republic. As stated by Paul Krugman in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Makers, Takers, Fakers" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/opinion/krugman-makers-takers-fakers-.html?_r=0), "even as Republicans look for a way to sound more sympathetic and less extreme, their actual policies are taking another sharp right turn." Why are the Republican engaging in this nefarious conduct? Krugman says that he has a partial answer:

"Well, I don’t have a full answer, but I think it’s important to understand the extent to which leading Republicans live in an intellectual bubble. They get their news from Fox and other captive media, they get their policy analysis from billionaire-financed right-wing think tanks, and they’re often blissfully unaware both of contrary evidence and of how their positions sound to outsiders.

So when Mr. Romney made his infamous '47 percent' remarks, he wasn’t, in his own mind, saying anything outrageous or even controversial. He was just repeating a view that has become increasingly dominant inside the right-wing bubble, namely that a large and ever-growing proportion of Americans won’t take responsibility for their own lives and are mooching off the hard-working wealthy. Rising unemployment claims demonstrate laziness, not lack of jobs; rising disability claims represent malingering, not the real health problems of an aging work force."

Ah, it's all the fault of Fox and the "captive media"! Those son of a guns!

But wait . . . Is it only Fox that is responsible for these capricious claims that "rising disability claims represent malingering, not the real health problems of an aging work force"?

Consider the investigation of Krugman's own newspaper concerning Long Island Rail Road retirees who possibly overcharged their employer in the amount of more than $1 billion for disability payments (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/l/long_island_rail_road/index.html):

"In September 2008, The New York Times ran an investigation on former employees of the Long Island Rail Road. Drawing on government records and dozens of interviews, reporters found that nearly all retirees from this commuter rail service — the busiest in the nation, according to its Web site — were applying for and receiving federal disability payments.

The articles revealed that a web of doctors and facilitators were helping the workers file papers claiming they were disabled. The doctors ran what amounted to 'disability mills,' which prepared false medical assessments for the retirees to file with the Railroad Retirement Board. Facilitators were liaisons between the doctors and the workers."

Goodness gracious! The Times is also a part of this captive media conspiracy? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Obama Administration's Benghazi Cover-Up: On the Verge of Tears

Did anyone really think that the entire US intelligence community would agree to take the blame for the fatal Benghazi fiasco? Well, some of the facts are beginning to leak out, although you won't find them anywhere in The New York Times or The Washington Post ten days before the presidential election. As reported by Jennifer Griffin of Fox News in an article entitled "CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say" (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/):

"Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to 'stand down' rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

. . . .

[Former Navy SEAL Tyrone] Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.

At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied.

. . . .

The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours -- enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.

. . . .

According to sources on the ground during the attack, the special operator on the roof of the CIA annex had visual contact and a laser pointing at the Libyan mortar team that was targeting the CIA annex. The operators were calling in coordinates of where the Libyan forces were firing from."

As further reported in this article, Tyrone Woods and former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty "were killed by a mortar shell at 4 a.m. Libyan time, nearly seven hours after the attack on the consulate began -- a window that represented more than enough time for the U.S. military to send back-up."

No, we haven't heard the last of this.

Who is to blame for this disaster? This has yet to be determined. But the readiness of the Obama administration to sweep this incident under the rug leaves me aghast. As someone who has spent a significant part of his life in the military, I cannot imagine being abandoned in this fashion.

I am overwhelmed by the dedication to duty of Ambassador Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith and Glen Doherty, and my prayers go out to their families.

Listening to Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods, left me on the verge of tears (see: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/joe-biden-to-father-of-former-navy-seal-killed-in-benghazi-did-your-son-always-have-balls-the-size-of-cue-balls/). Yes, Mr. Woods, your son is a true American hero.

Maureen Dowd, "Complicity in Duplicity?": The Queen of Snark Wakes Up to a Cover Up

On September 12, shortly after the deadly attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, I wrote in no uncertain words (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/09/gail-collins-mitts-major-meltdown.html):

"Make no mistake about it: The movie 'Innocence of Muslims' was a disinformation exercise, timed around 9/11, intended to exacerbate Arab rioting that had been scheduled in advance. Worse still, the global media, hungry for a story, quickly cooperated by publicizing all of the story's false threads."

Nevertheless, the Obama administration chose to pretend that the attacks had been "spontaneous" in respose to this silly excuse for a film.

Initially oblivious to the Obama administration's snow job, Maureen Dowd stated in her September 25th New York Times op-ed entitled "Why Not Debtors’ Prison?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/opinion/dowd-why-not-debtors-prison.html):

"At least the president has a foreign policy."

Well, Dowd has now woken up to the effort to disguise a foreign policy and national security disgrace. In her latest Times op-ed entitled "Complicity in Duplicity?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/03/opinion/dowd-complicity-in-duplicity.html), Dowd tells us:

"It’s remarkable that President Obama, who came to power abhorring the manipulative and duplicitous tactics of the Bush crowd, should now be vulnerable to similar charges.

. . . .

Just so, in an overzealous effort to burnish a president who did not need burnishing — especially against foreign policy bumbler Mitt Romney and foreign policy novice Paul Ryan — they have gotten tangled in contradictory accounts about Benghazi. The administration had benefited from the impression that it had diminished Al Qaeda, even though the public no doubt appreciates that it was never going to be so simple."

Dowd unreasonably blames only Susan Rice for "rushing to pump up the president on national security." Yet in this instance, culpability extends far beyond America's ambitious Ambassador to the United Nations. White House press secretary Jay Carney declared on September 14:

"We have no information to suggest that it was a pre-planned attack. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive."

However, as reported by Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/27/us-officials-knew-libya-attack-was-terrorism-within-24-hours-sources-confirm/):

"U.S. intelligence officials knew within 24 hours of the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya that it was a terrorist attack and suspected Al Qaeda-tied elements were involved, sources told Fox News -- though it took the administration a week to acknowledge it."

Make no mistake about it: The breakdown of security in Benghazi and the subsequent attempt to bamboozle the American public should be the subject of a congressional investigation.